June 2002 posts
Excellent Tara article -- tyche, 01:16:45
06/06/02 Thu
This article more or less sums up my feelings on the whole matter. While I
don't think that ME are homophobes, they certainly decided to pursue a storyline which would have the
homophobic members of the audience jumping up and down with glee. This article explains why.
"I killed Tara": Desire and Death on Buffy
by Todd R. Ramlow
PopMatters Film
and TV Critic
Tara is dead. Few things have saddened me more on network television than
the callous murder of the infinitely patient and caring Tara (Amber Benson) right in front of her lover's
eyes (Willow Rosenberg, played by Alyson Hannigan). It was a gruesome scene to be sure, and initiated
the countdown to the sixth season finale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which aired Tuesday, 21 May 2002.
Having only recently reunited, and having just finished a bout of reunion sex, the girls are dressing in the
bedroom they share when a stray bullet fired by Super-Villain/Nerd Warren (Adam Busch) hits Tara in
the back. A stunned Willow, splattered with blood, watches her girlfriend collapse and cradles her head as
she dies.
Clearly, this was a tragic ending to one of prime-time television's most engaging
love stories. More disturbing, as well as more socially and politically troublesome, however, is that Tara's
death completes what has become a rather homophobic and pathological representation of lesbian desires
and relationships over the course of the past season.
In the past, Willow and Tara's
relationship has been hailed by television critics, Buffy fans and casual viewers, as a groundbreaking
representation of homosexuality and of queer youth in particular -- even if, after six seasons, the "kids" on
Buffy are in their early 20s. Compared to other gay and lesbian teens (or adults), like Jack McPhee (Kerr
Smith), so dampened by his own soap-box oratories and closeting over on Dawson's Creek, the love of
Willow and Tara gave many of us hope that things might be changing for queers on network TV. Even
better, this representation of lesbianism seems to have had direct influence out in the "real world." In
interviews, Amber Benson has repeatedly attested to the massive response she has gotten for her portrayal,
much of it from gay and lesbian teens who found in her character inspiration and the strength to come out
in their own lives.
The social and political import of Buffy has been the message that being
queer is okay. Through Willow and Tara, "we" have been shown that gay folk of all sorts aren't unnatural,
sick, perverse, etc. And given the significant tween and teen audience of the show, this is a message that
might have helped shape the perceptions of a generation.
Even so, I will admit that I have had
one ongoing gripe about the Willow and Tara relationship, and that has been BVS's reluctance to show
much intimacy between the two lovers. For the past few seasons, Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar) has been
given free rein to express her sexual urges, first with Riley Finn (Marc Blucas) and this past season with
the de-fanged vampire Spike (James Marsters). In the episode "Dead Things," for instance, Buffy and
Spike shag everywhere in various states of undress, including on the balcony of The Bronze, where Spike
gives it to Buffy from behind while she watches her friends from above the dance floor. Willow and Tara,
on the other hand, have appeared positively prudish.
But, perhaps showcasing Willow and
Tara's morality and commitment in place of spectacular erotics is not such a bad thing, especially in light
of Vito Russo's assertion, in The Celluloid Closet, that throughout film history, gay men and lesbians have
been delimited by homophobic stereotypes of queer sexual excess and promiscuity. On the other hand,
BVS creator and executive producer (and still more than occasional writer and director) Joss Whedon's
skittish-ness about being too explicit around Willow and Tara's love life could easily be read as reflective
of the continuing homophobia and intolerance of American culture generally.
Whedon's
answer to this conundrum -- what and how much to show -- has been to code lesbianism as witchcraft,
and specifically, lesbian sex as spell-casting. Around the middle of season four, the episode "Who Are
You?" established the parameters within which lesbian sex could be portrayed. In this episode, bad-girl
slayer Faith (Eliza Dushku) wakes from a coma and with the aid of a magic charm, switches bodies with
Buffy. (And the sexual tensions between the dueling Slayers become more obvious when played against
the overt sexuality of Willow and Tara.) Tara is, "naturally," the first to notice that "Buffy" seems
different, and suggests to Willow that they try a spell that will reveal the truth. She cautions, however,
that the spell is "really intense" and that she will need to serve as Willow's "anchor" to the material realm.
We then see the two practicing their craft, all dewy-eyed and sweaty-faced, moaning and panting.
Overcome by the intensity and power of their bond, Willow falls backward, in slow motion, onto a bed of
pillows in orgasmic joy.
This representational strategy for representing lesbian sex has been a
relatively complicated gambit: viewers who might be anxious about overt representation of lesbian
sexuality can relax, for the girls are, after all, only practicing witchcraft, while more savvy viewers can
read the codes and find an empowered and loving lesbian couple with a healthy sex life. Nevertheless, in
comparison to their heterosexual counterparts on the show the lovers' sex life has been much more
obscurely represented. Most often, the girls merely allude to "spells" that keep them "up all night."
This changed during the past season, which took that relatively simple and progressive coding
of lesbian desire and sex as witchery and turned it into addiction and pathology. Early on, trouble is
brewing between Willow and Tara over Willow's increasing reliance on her magical powers. In the
episode titled "Tabula Rasa," Tara issues Willow an ultimatum -- either she get her witchcraft (sex)
addiction under control or Tara will leave her. Willow resorts to magic to make Tara forget their troubles,
things go awry, the spell is broken, and Tara, realizing she has been betrayed and violated, leaves Willow.
Following this, Willow spins out of control, seeks solace with the black-magic pusher Rack (Jeff Kober),
and which culminates in "Wrecked," where we watch Willow's descent into addiction and despair.
Once Willow realizes she "has a problem," she spends the last half of the season struggling to
stay clean and win Tara back. Here, Buffy came close to saving itself from its own internal logic of
lesbianism as pathology through the possibility of Willow and Tara's reunion. All Willow's struggles (and
the show's) were in vain, however, as the girls' rekindled love is brutally truncated in Tara's senseless and
untimely murder.
From here, Willow falls entirely off the wagon, maxes out on magic juice,
hunts down Warren, flays him alive, and burns him to death. Throughout the double-episode season
finale, Willow repeatedly refers to herself as a "junkie." But to what is she addicted? The power of
witchcraft or lesbian sex? Well, both, considering how BVS has gone to such lengths for the past three
seasons to code Willow and Tara's spell-casting as queer sexuality. And this has been a relatively new
twist on an old stereotype; now, rather than a psychological "condition," lesbianism is a physical addiction
that can ruin your life, and threaten both addict and those she loves.
Unsurprisingly, the
closure of Willow-Tara story arc in addiction and death has caused no small amount of outrage in the
show's fans. Much of the mainstream press (with some exceptions, like Salon) has been less vocal or
critical about the regressive changes in what has been up until now such a positive portrayal. In many
ways, this silence demonstrate just how easily "we" continue to accept the most prejudicial of homophobic
stereotypes -- apparently most journalistic sources haven't found anything objectionable in Tara's death
and Willow's rampage.
This has also been true of media watchdog groups that we might
presume to be a bit more fine-tuned to the representational nuances of homophobia. For the past two
years, among its many industry accolades and awards, Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been nominated by
GLAAD (the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) for their media award in the category of
Outstanding Drama Series. Perhaps GLAAD needs to reconsider, post-season finale, for how can this
ending of Willow and Tara's story be understood as anything but defamatory? This is not to say that
groups like GLAAD should try to take awards back if their awardees don't follow party line. What is
surprising (at least to me) is that GLAAD again nominated Buffy this past year, considering the
problematic implications of the Willow-Tara story as I have outlined them here.
While much
of the mainstream press has been silent on the death of Tara, on-line fan venues have been abuzz with
criticism. Apparently, Whedon was so assailed after the season finale aired that he quickly posted the
following defense on the show's official website chat room: "I killed Tara... Because stories, as I have so
often said, are not about what we WANT. And I knew some people would be angry with me for destroying
the only gay couple on the show, but the idea that I COULDN'T kill Tara because she was gay is as
offensive to me as the idea that I DID kill her because she was gay. Willow's story was not about being
gay. It was about weakness, addiction, loss... the way life hits you in the gut right when you think you're
back on your feet."
Whedon's rationalization raises two problems. First, surely few people are
angry because they feel Whedon shouldn't have killed off Tara because she was gay. Instead what angers
me (and perhaps others) is how Buffy has transformed one of the most empowering and progressive
portrayals of lesbian desire, identity, and commitment on network television into an experience of
degradation and addiction that leads to death.
Second, Willow's story isn't about being gay?!
Despite the fact that over the past three seasons, her story has specifically been about her and the rest of
the Scooby gang's coming to grips with the fact? The story arc that started with Willow coming out as
bisexual in Season 4 has become by this past season about her direct affirmation of her lesbian self.
How can Whedon not see the direct connections between Willow's story of "weakness" and
historical stereotypes of homosexuality as congenital and/or psychological defect, or how her "addiction"
dovetails easily with prejudices against queer sexual pathologies and excess? We are not angry that Tara
was killed off because she is gay and there are so few representations (good or bad) of gays and lesbians
on prime-time television. Rather, we are angry that both Willow and Tara had to be so severely degraded
and punished for falling in love with each other.
[> Okay, I have a question... -- Marie, 02:13:49 06/06/02
Thu
I haven't gotten involved in much of the discussions on this board about the W/T
relationship, although I have read them with interest. While my brain understands and sympathises with
pretty much every argumment I've read, my heart is simply sad that Tara is dead, and Willow is in such
pain.
What is puzzling me, though, is what appears to be an assumption that Willow isn't
going to have another relationship with a woman. Everything I read seems to say "Joss Whedon killed off
the only honest gay relationship on television!". Where does it say that ME won't write another
one? And I'm not trying to downplay Willow's grief by suggesting that she jump straight into another
relationship. After all, Buffy killed her true love and didn't leap directly into another's arms. But she
eventually started to heal, and so will Willow, I'm sure.
Do you understand what I'm saying
here? I wish people would give ME a little slack, and wait and see what they come up with for us.
Marie
[> This is my last post on the subject. -- Traveler, 02:59:05
06/06/02 Thu
I've posted most of my views on Tara's death in a previous thread. Being
the argumentative person that I am, I couldn't let this article pass without comment. However, I am
thoroughly sick of this subject, so I will not respond to any further posts.
"Even so, I will
admit that I have had one ongoing gripe about the Willow and Tara relationship, and that has been BVS's
reluctance to show much intimacy between the two lovers."
This is mostly because of the
networks. After BtVS moved to UPN, the intimacies between Tara and Willow were more frequent and
explicit. Todd's assertion that their relationship was prudish is ridiculous. The Willow and Tara sex scene
in OMWF was as erotic and explicit as anything Buffy and Spike ever did, and there are other examples
where they kissed, touched, and flirted with each other.
"Whedon's answer to this
conundrum -- what and how much to show -- has been to code lesbianism as witchcraft, and specifically,
lesbian sex as spell-casting . . . Tara issues Willow an ultimatum -- either she get her witchcraft (sex)
addiction under control or Tara will leave her."
Magic was never used to portray
lesbianism; it was used as a metaphore for orgasm itself. Another example of this is when Willow
experiences a magic induced orgasm with Rack, the drug dealer. This event alters the metaphore slightly.
It is still a metaphore for orgasm, but it becomes a metaphore for drugs as well. This isn't an entirely
bizarre pairing, since some drugs do mimic the effects of orgasm. Thus, Willow became addicted the
feeling of orgasm as well as the power and control that magic gave her. This is also consistant with drugs,
since people taking drugs often feel a false sense of power. Thus, Willow isn't addicted to sex, even as a
metaphore, so much as she is addicted to a feeling of sexual power. Like drugs, this power is false and
ultimately hurts the people she cares about. This may tell us something about Willow, but it isn't meant to
be a statement about sex in general, let alone lesbian sex.
"Throughout the double-episode
season finale, Willow repeatedly refers to herself as a "junkie." But to what is she addicted? The power of
witchcraft or lesbian sex? "
Niether. See above for my description of her
addiction.
"Second, Willow's story isn't about being gay?! Despite the fact that over the past
three seasons, her story has specifically been about her and the rest of the Scooby gang's coming to grips
with the fact?"
No, Willow's story isn't about being gay, and once she "came out of the
closet," the Scooby gang dealt with the news fairly quickly and continued loving her as they always
had.
"Rather, we are angry that both Willow and Tara had to be so severely degraded and
punished for falling in love with each other."
Where is the cause and effect here? Willow
and Tara both suffered this season. So did all the other characters. Why do you assume that this suffering
was a punishment for being lesbian?
Quite frankly, after reading this article and the
posts on the Kitten board, I am beginning to wish that ME had never made Willow a lesbian at all. They
stuck their necks out, pushed a groundbreaking lesbian relationship past the censors, and this is the
response? This article is an example of someone who is determined to interpret every event in the show in
the worst possible light, as it regards to his social agenda. It irritates me the degree to which people blow
things out of proportion. This show is not called Willow the Lesbian. It's Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and
most of it isn't intended as a statement about lesbians. The world doesn't revolve around lesbians. Most
people don't walk down the street categorizing others as "lesbian" and "not lesbian." Most people really
don't care that much, and it's a kind of arrogance to assume that they do.
[> [> Re: This is my last post on the subject. -- tyche,
06:40:56 06/06/02 Thu
i) Sure, other couples on the show have suffered, but none of
them have had the combination of one partner being dead and one partner being evil. Oz is not dead,
Riley is not dead, Cordelia is not dead, Anya is not dead, Xander hasn't tried to end the world .. etc.
ii) Like it or not, ME are sending a message with the storylines they choose to pursue. The
writers said from the beginning of the W/T relationship that they wanted to portray it in a positive way,
that they were aware of the cliches and that they wouldn't fall into them. So they ARE aware of the social
messages conveyed by their storylines. And the message they're sending by having every gay character in
the history of the show dead or evil is what, exactly? That if you're gay you don't deserve anything better?
That if you're an unrepentant mass murdering rapist, you deserve to live, but if you're a lesbian and you
have sex, you deserve nothing but misery.
iii) How do you know what 'most people' think
about gay people? Have you got any statistics to back up your assertions? And how do you define 'most
people' anyway? Most people you know? Most people in the world? Most people with red hair? Most
people with blue eyes?
iv) You're right in saying that W/T was groundbreaking (and in saying
so you're admitting that gay couples on TV are rarely portrayed in a positive light, when they're allowed
on screen), but unfortunately the way the writers chose to pursue Willow's storyline was cliched in the
extreme. [heavy sarcasm] (I mean, certainly every lesbian I've every nown has been dead or evil.)[/heavy
sarcasm]
If they had subverted the cliche that gay people are never allowed to be happy,
THAT would have been groundbreaking and genuinely original. Until now, they've made the show
original, fresh and suprising by taking cliches and subverting them, twisting them around to defeat
audience expectations like they did with the very premise of the show - small blonde girl kicks butt.
And if you have really been reading posts on the Kitten board, you would know that people
there are happy and grateful to that W/T have been depicted in a groundbreaking and mostly positive way
up until now. People have been incredibly grateful to see a relatively happy gay couple on TV - there are
whole threads in the archives of the Kitten board praising ME for their depiction of W/T. W/T shippers
are so upset because they thought that this would be the first time a gay couple on TV would be allowed to
be happy. True, nobody in the Buffyverse gets away without some angst, but until this year, W/T had
beaten the odds and seemed to have a good chance of a happy ending. That's why a lot of people are so
upset that W/T have been utterly destroyed. If you are a member of a group of people who are rarely
depicted on TV, and the majority of those depictions are negative, then of course you're going to be upset
that a positive depiction turns into yet another negative one.
I am a straight woman, so there
are plenty of positive as well as negative depictions of people like me on TV. I cannot imagine what it
must be like to switch on your TV, and the only people you see who are like you are dead or evil. If I
don't like the way straight women are depicted on, say, 'Ally McBeal' or 'E.R.', I can change the channel
and see other positive depictions of straight women elsewhere. Gay people don't usually get that choice.
There are hundreds of positive depictions of long-term straight relationships on TV. But W/T were the
ONLY fairly positive lesbian relationship on TV.
This is not to say that ME should not have
the freedom to depict their characters and relationships however they want; or to drive their show
completely into the ground if they so desire, which seems in fact to have been the game plan for most of
season 6. If they want to have nothing but negative depictions of gay people on their show, then of course
they should have that freedom. Until media depictions of gay relationships - both positive and negative -
are as varied as depictions of straight relationships, claiming that losing the one positive depiction of a
lesbian couple doesn't matter is like saying that it doesn't matter if all black people are represented as
criminals, because after all, you were doing them a favour by putting them on air in the first place.
And here's another article I suggest you read:
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2002-06-06/arts.asp
[> [> [> Bored now..... -- O'Cailleagh, 07:35:37
06/06/02 Thu
With no offense intended to anyone who has posted on this subject, I have
to say that its getting a little old. It has been debated now for around a week, covering three separate
threads (on this board alone!) and the only thing happening is people are saying the same things back and
forth. Its getting tiresome. I am gay, I'm also a Witch. I found nothing offensive about the story arc, its
nothing to do with gay sensibilities, or even Witchcraft, its about Willow's self esteem issues and her quest
to better herself getting out of her control. I agree, all the gay characters within the history of the show
have either gone evil or died, but then all the English characters are depicted as foppish, the Irish
characters as evil/demonic, the black characters are practically non-existent. Willow is still around, her
evil is gone, she is still gay. She will be fine, and she'll get a new girlfriend. Lets just sit back and wait for
S7 now, shall we?
[> [> [> [> Thank you!!! -- Rob, 07:55:23
06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Yes, thank you! -- tomfool, 08:59:51
06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> And yet more thanks -- Wayne,
10:26:30 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Thank you. -- Traveler, 01:41:38
06/07/02 Fri
[> [> [> Re: This is my last post on the subject. --
misterd, 13:12:46 06/06/02 Thu
Where the **** do you get the notion that the end
result of the relationship had ANYTHING to do with what the characters "deserved"?
Tara did
NOT "deserve" to die, which is why it was a ****ing TRAGEDY! It was not vengeance, it was not
justice. Her death was a hirrble crime and the ciminal paid for it dearly.
As for people's
attitudes about homosexuals, maybe you should take a moment and look at the response to Tara's death. I
don't see anyone dancing in the streets. It was a powerful storyline, and her death touched millions - and it
was not because she was a lesbian, or in spite of her being a lesbian, but because they liked the character,
period.
There is no "dead lesbian" clice. There is a "dead lover" cliche and has been one as
long as stories have been told. There have been hundreds of tv shows in which the lead has fallen in love
only to watch the character die at the end of the show.
Willow and Tara DID get special
treatment - they lasted longer than most couples on BTVS, and for the most part was portrayed as being a
far more normal, healthy relationship than any other we have seen on the series.
[> [> I'm with you...I think this guy is grabbing at straws to try
and make this comparrison. -- maddog, 08:52:53 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> Re: This is my last post on the subject. -- JM,
10:22:52 06/06/02 Thu
While I think that the debate has been very interesting and
informative and thought provoking, and the article was well written (though I largely disagree with it), I
was very frustrated with the discussion of magic. I think that it is an almost deliberate misreading of the
text to so absolutely equate magic with sex. Magic has been a metaphor for many things over the course
of the series, more often power than anything else. (The only metaphor that has been consistently
sexualized, in my opinion, is vampirism.)
The only season in which magic was used as a
metaphor for Willow and Tara's relationship was season four, and then only for a few episodes. The main
reason was ME's clever attempt to completely subvert the strict censors, who still balked at even one kiss a
year later. I'm pretty sure that they never used this metaphor after the relationship was
revealed.
The subtext to the magic scenes should be seen less as an example of magic equating
to sex, or magic inflaming sexual passions (which IMO isn't all that much different than saying that Tara
cast a spell and changed Willow's orientation), than part of the literary tradition of expressing restrained
desire through sensualizing non-sexual activities. I'm not a lit major, so I'm expressing this badly and
perhaps inaccurately, but I'm pretty sure that DH Lawrence is supposed to be known for this. The scene I
was always referred to was the feast scene in "Tom Jones," which is wickedly sensual, as well as
uproarious, and much more lascivious than anything that could have been shown on screen at that date.
But that doesn't mean that every other occurance of eating in the film is necessarily a metaphor for sex.
(At least I don't think it is.)
In season 5 and early 6 magic was briefly used as a metaphor for
different belief systems and ethical constructs. Whatever Willow and Tara's other problems, they are not
really co-religionists and do not share all moral values. Later in the season magic is used as a metaphor
for substance abuse, which seemed apt, because physical addictions sometimes develop as part and parcel
of emotional problems. (This is also not the first use of such a metaphor. "Dark Age" very directly
equated drug and magic use, and arguably "Band Candy" as well.) In the season finale, magic as drug
metaphor continued, but it also became a metaphor for emotion, and the danger of unrestrained emotion,
both negative and positive.
I feel that anyone sophisticated enough to grasp the "spell"
metaphor in "Who Are You," is sophisticated enough to grasp the instances where magic was a metaphor
for other things all together. Whether they agree with the choice of the PTB is another matter entirely. I
also think that the debate is heated, touchy, and intriguing enough without misrepresenting the text.
[> [> To tyche: I wanted to say to you what I said to Lurker.
-- Sophist, 09:04:42 06/07/02 Fri
I realized, belatedly, that the invitation I extended to
Lurker, in which several others joined, might cause you to feel that your posts were not equally valued.
This is especially true in light of some of the less thoughtful responses in this thread.
As was
true with Lurker's post, I did not agree with all of the points in either the article you copied or your own
posts. However, I think that both added valuable points to the discussion of this topic. Also, if you are the
same tyche who posts on the Kitten Board, I know that you can make good contributions. I hope you'll
post here more often.
[> [> Traveler, please read, b/c I wasn't here to respond to you
before! -- yuri, 15:35:50 06/07/02 Fri
I feel it so necessary to write this largely
because your last post which ended with "Now I would like to just step back and let the flaming begin,"
received amazingly few flames. I understand why - I agree that Tara died because it fit the story line, not
because she was gay; I agree that Tara was shown in the most favorable of lights, especially for BtVS, but
I think you discount to an appalling extent much of the background that fuels the valid anger people are
feeling. I did not feel this anger, I reacted to Tara's death in the way I believe ME wanted us to, I did not
come away thinking about how it played in to negative gay stereotypes, but IT DID. If this many people
think it did, and were hurt by it, IT DID.
I think that you don't give enough credit to the
subtleties of the reinforcement of stereotypes. Let me take, for example, the well known stereotype of the
black guy getting killed off first in action movies. Now, let's say you have the most amazing action movie
of all time, it's artistically gorgeous, the plot is exciting and driven, the intellectual implications are
fantastic, etc. etc. But the one black character gets killed off first. It completely fit emotionally with how
the character was written, and it was necessary in order to propel the amazing plot in the way it needed to
go, but nevertheless, it perpetuated a cliché. Now, I wouldn't have told the director or writer YOU CAN'T
DO THIS, but I would be slightly disappointed that it had to be this way, and I would demand that the
director/writer acknowledge how that scene could have been taken badly, and offer the humble oath that it
wasn't intended in that way.
I see also that you don't see how having a gay character killed off
and her lover get all crazy about it is a cliché, but you must trust those who have been hurt by it -
the angry/psycho/weird gay character has been done again and again, as has the punishment for being
happy and gay. Even when it is done in a way that portrays the gay character as "good," it is still very
affecting to never get a real happy ending to a gay relationship. (I have a terrible memory for examples, I
just evaluate them, make my opinion, and then discard them, but if you ask I would totally put some effort
in to finding a good, large list of examples for you.) I don't think Buffy is the place for having a happy
ending to anything, it is just unfortunate that what is truly a natural extension of the plot actually
reproduces a very sad and well known image.
To try and clarify my point, I wanted to quote
you - When Willowlicious said Thank god Xander is there to talk Willow down with anecdotes about
yellow crayons, or where would we be? A man saves the world from the crazy lesbian. What year is this
again? Just checking. And you say I can't believe you just took one of the most beautiful scenes of
any television show and spewed bile all over it. That was about two people who love each other, not a
lesbian and a straight guy. Well the fact of the matter is, some people will view them as the lesbian
and the straight guy, and they shouldn't be criticized for that because they may just be unfortunate enough
to live in that sort of factionalized world. Good for you that you don't. I don't agree with FUCK JOSS
thing many people have going on, but I respect and endeavor to understand where they're coming from.
Even though this scene in no conscious way tried to connote that straight men in the end will have to save
the lesbians, some people will see it that way because of the place we live in. The conscious intent of the
writers does not always forgive what something may represent.
You also say that No,
Willow's story isn't about being gay, and once she "came out of the closet," the Scooby gang dealt with the
news fairly quickly and continued loving her as they always had. Well, this time I can personally and
fervently disagree with you. Dealing with being gay does not stop after you come out and your close group
of friends deals with it. (and btw, that look that Buffy got right at first, even though she dealt with it really
fast, can stick on a person for a very long time.) You may say that yes, this is true, but the show hasn't
focused terribly hard on her dealing with being gay, but you see anyone who has had a somewhat
analogous experience (I came out as bisexual) will be thinking of it throughout.
Again, I WAS
NOT immediately outraged by the implications of Tara's death, and you know what? I'm fucking lucky,
because the people who were have obviously been through some shit. I don't think Joss could or
necessarily should have done it in any other way, because I think that it was perfect for what was going
on, but I think he should acknowledge people's anger and just be sorry that it had to be that way.
[> [> [> Very nice post, yuri. Fair to both sides. -- Exegy,
18:06:48 06/07/02 Fri
[> [> [> Lovely post. Thanks for addressing my concerns.
-- Traveler, 18:08:24 06/07/02 Fri
"I think you discount to an appalling extent
much of the background that fuels the valid anger people are feeling."
I'm not sure what
you mean by "discount" in this context. I do consider the fact that people have different backgrounds and
experiences, and if I respond to someone's post, I always attempt to address all their arguments, even if I
don't agree with them. Having said that, being angry and abused doesn't make someone right. I may feel
sympathy for them as a person, but that doesn't make me agree with them.
"I did not come
away thinking about how it played in to negative gay stereotypes, but IT DID. If this many people think it
did, and were hurt by it, IT DID."
Some people will read negative stereotypes into just
about anything. I tend to take the things these people say with a large grain of salt, because they are not
speaking with anything remotely resembling a balanced perspective.
"it perpetuated a
cliché. Now, I wouldn't have told the director or writer YOU CAN'T DO THIS, but I would be slightly
disappointed that it had to be this way, and I would demand that the director/writer acknowledge how that
scene could have been taken badly, and offer the humble oath that it wasn't intended in that
way."
The post I originally responded to was not an expression of "slight disappointment."
It was a long and involved rant. Also, I would never demand that a writer explain themselves to
me. I judge them for what they do, but I don't expect personal concessions. Besides which, Joss
has written a very touching, personal explanation for why he killed Tara, which has been
reiterated by the other writers.
"if you ask I would totally put some effort in to finding a
good, large list of examples for you.)"
Don't give me a long list. Give me a short list of
recent, popular movies and television shows, with strong evidence supporting the conclusion that they
perpetuate this cliche. I'm not saying that such a cliche doesn't exist, but I haven't seen any good
examples of it.
"Well the fact of the matter is, some people will view them as the lesbian
and the straight guy, and they shouldn't be criticized for that because they may just be unfortunate enough
to live in that sort of factionalized world."
No offense, but that is their problem. A
lot of people used to categorize Angel as "the vampire with a soul" and Spike as "the vampire without a
soul." By becoming a slave to this overly simplified classification, they missed or ignored many of the
complexities that make this show interesting. If we can criticize someone for being a bad writer, we can
also criticize ourselves for being a bad audience. This happens when our own preconceptions
completely overshadow the art itself. ME didn't write Willow and Xander as "The Lesbian" and
"The Straight Guy," so anyone who treats them as such is doing the writers a disservice. Nabokov wrote
an essay on "how to be a good reader," which illustrates this concept in full.
"Dealing with
being gay does not stop after you come out and your close group of friends deals with
it."
You place a different emphasis here than the writer of the original post. It is one thing
to say that Willow must deal with being gay, but quite another to say that her story is about being
gay. Being gay is only one small part of who she is. Her story is much more complex and interesting than
some afterschool special. Personally, if I were gay and someone said my life was about being gay, I
would be really insulted.
"Again, I WAS NOT immediately outraged by the implications of
Tara's death, and you know what? I'm fucking lucky, because the people who were have obviously been
through some shit."
And if this is true, then these people have my profoundest sympathy.
However, I don't want them bringing their grievances to my favorite show. I understand that personal
experiences color everything we see, but with some people, those experiences overwhelm
everything they see.
Also, as a side note, if the Kittens had posted an essay as sensitive and
balanced as you did, my response would have been very different.
[> [> [> Always buckle up! (It's not just smart -- it's the
law) -- Malandanza, 19:31:28 06/07/02 Fri
In the old Batman series, there was
always a moment when Batman and Robin hopped into the Batmobile and the camera panned down to
show them buckling up. Periodically, Batman would stop and lecture, ostensibly Robin, but really the
audience, about some moral issue. It was fun. The lectures always seemed more of a mockery and less in
earnest to me. But that was Batman.
Buffy isn't an after-school special. The storylines aim for
maximum angst. Buffy is at its worst when it is preachy -- didn't we all hate the heavy-handed drugs-are-
bad and creepy-crack-dealers-are-evil episode? And the episode showing Riley reaching for a condom?
The camera focused so clearly and slowly on the condom that I was reminded of the seat belts from
Batman -- I half expected Marc Blucas to turn to the camera and say "Remember, kids: always practice
safe sex" followed by some sort of similar remark from SMG.
I think Joss handled the lesbian
issue quite well. Realistically, not some idealized version of the perfect lesbian partnership. The look you
mention by Buffy when Willow first intimated that she was gay is the perfect example. Buffy knew that
there was nothing wrong with being gay, intellectually, but when faced with a gay friend, something in
her rebelled. She didn't understand why and she was disgusted with herself (as seen in her lecture to poor
Riley about prejudice -- it was really a lecture to herself). I thought it was great that Willow's friends took
a couple of episodes to get used to the idea. There was also the scene in the magic shop where Xander
and Buffy puzzled over what to get Tara for a present -- what do lesbians like anyway? And Giles'
response helped set them straight -- they got it. Tara is Tara -- she was never defined by her sexuality.
Other than the brief fight in Season Five just before Tara got brain-sucked, lesbianism hasn't been an
issue. I think was potential to address other issues -- especially when Anya and Xander were getting
married. A moment for Tara and Willow to realize that they could never (under current laws) have a
marriage sanctioned by the government, but, oddly enough, ME decided to make Xander's wedding all
about Xander instead.
I think Traveler is right, "Some people will read negative
stereotypes into just about anything." Evidence that this is one of those cases is, I think, substantial.
Look at all the other negative gay stereotypes that ME has used in the past that no one has complained
about:
1. Larry, the gay jock, sexually harassing girls to hide his orientation
2. All the
"Xander might be gay" jokes -- some with Larry, but one when Xander was describing why Buffy might
be having sex with Spike
3. The homophobic remarks made by Spike (especially in the voiceover
when he made the cameo on AtS)
4. Homophobic remarks made by Warren and the portrayal of
Andrew as the evil closeted gay (and the gay truckdriver, looking to molest a couple of young hitch
hikers)
5. Wesley and Angel worrying that Cordelia's friends might think they're gay ("adds to the
mystery")
Instead, they've focused on the lesbian relationship where ME has treated
Willow/Tara no differently than any other couple. Isn't equal treatment what the civil rights movement is
about?
Why did ME have Tara killed off right after the reconciliation? Obviously to show
that lesbian sex is wrong, right? Or maybe because that's when the impact would be strongest, the regret
greatest, the suffering most extreme. They had to justify Willow going over the edge -- nothing less would
have worked.
I wouldn't watch Buffy if I had to sit through a sermon every episode and I can't
imagine many of the rest of you would sit through one after-school special after another.
[> [> [> [> Re: Always buckle up! (It's not just smart -- it's
the law) -- misterd, 19:53:26 06/07/02 Fri
Hey, you forgot "Beer
Bad"!
The lesbian militia seems intent on finding a hidden message in this incident. Well,
here's one I found:
Don't write lesbian characters. Don't portray them in a believable way.
Don't endear them to a largely straight audience so that the mainstream can come to see lesbians as real
human beings. If you do you will be forever beholden to them, and the moment you displease them you
can expect a sh*tstorm of criticism to come your way because their agenda is more important than your
art. They are nothing more than fair weather fans and not worth wasting time on.
See how
easy that is to find hidden messages?
If you want to see prejudice and fear you WILL find it
wherever you look.
As Jim Cameron wrote, you have to look with better eyes than that.
[> [> [> [> Re: Always buckle up! (It's not just smart -- it's
the law) -- Traveler, 01:55:03 06/08/02 Sat
"And the episode showing Riley
reaching for a condom? The camera focused so clearly and slowly on the condom that I was reminded of
the seat belts from Batman -- I half expected Marc Blucas to turn to the camera and say "Remember, kids:
always practice safe sex" followed by some sort of similar remark from SMG."
Personally,
I think Riley is a walking afterschool special. He seems to always be the one who gives us the "moral" of
an episode.
" I think was potential to address other issues -- especially when Anya and
Xander were getting married. A moment for Tara and Willow to realize that they could never (under
current laws) have a marriage sanctioned by the government, but, oddly enough, ME decided to make
Xander's wedding all about Xander instead. "
This is an interesting point. I think people
didn't respond that way to Xander's wedding because it's harder to complain about the absence of a
particular storyline than it is to criticize something that the writer actually did. Of course, if "Hell's Bells"
had been an episode about Willow and Tara getting married, it probably would have ended with
Tara leaving Willow at the alter...
"Look at all the other negative gay stereotypes that ME
has used in the past that no one has complained about:
1. Larry, the gay jock, sexually
harassing girls to hide his orientation
2. All the "Xander might be gay" jokes -- some with Larry, but
one when Xander was describing why Buffy might be having sex with Spike
3. The homophobic
remarks made by Spike (especially in the voiceover when he made the cameo on AtS)
4.
Homophobic remarks made by Warren and the portrayal of Andrew as the evil closeted gay (and the gay
truckdriver, looking to molest a couple of young hitch hikers)
5. Wesley and Angel worrying that
Cordelia's friends might think they're gay ("adds to the mystery")
You are actually giving
more weight to the Kittens' argument with these examples. They could say that this shows a trend within
the show itself of degrading homosexuals. My major argument against this line of reasoning is that all of
the scenes that you have mentioned are intended to underline the sexual insecurities of the people who
make these homophobic comments, not as a statement about homosexuals in general.
[> [> Well said. I couldn't agree more. nt -- Ian62,
15:50:29 06/07/02 Fri
nt
[> Response and aside to Masq. (spoilers) -- Darby,
06:00:44 06/06/02 Thu
This article is a good encapsulation of why people are reacting
negatively to how Tara has been treated.
In a show about images and metaphor, we should be
comfortable assuming that the writers consider the metaphors and images they're presenting. It is
disturbing that the "witchcraft = lesbianism" image (and Traveler, if you think it's an orgasm metaphor,
you're being short-sighted; rewatch Family and any of a dozen other episodes. I mean, a rose?)
was hijacked into a "witchcraft = addicting drug" metaphor, and now we're surprised that people are
seeing "lesbianism = addicting drug" and being upset at the implications?
For me, personally,
I'm less concerned with the specifics of the "death and evil to lesbians" controversy and more bothered by
what I see as a slacking off in sharpness of the show - to me, they either saw the negative metaphors that
they supposedly were not endorsing and either couldn't or wouldn't exert the imagination it would take to
avoid misconception and send exactly the message they wanted, or they failed to see problems that have
been obvious to people here (has anybody been happy with the "magic = drug" storyline?) for quite a while
and didn't really see this stuff coming. Forget what they did to Tara, this is representative for what I fear
they may be doing to the show. This is underlined by a disturbingly negative tone in the interviews with
the actors lately, such as NB and SMG, as if they are feeling it too.
To Masq - I looked
up Family to make sure that I had the ep title right, and what is said there about witchcraft and X
chromosomes doesn't really hold up - both you and I express our X chromosomes, it's not an either-or
between the X and Y. There conceivably could be a witchcraft inhibitor on the Y. From what little we've
been given of Tara's background, though, I would guess that her "gift" is largely epigenetic - passed down
in this case by teaching more than DNA. She talks about magical things she learned from her mother and
received from her grandmother.
[> [> Ditto to you and to tyche -- Sophist, 08:58:35
06/06/02 Thu
I agree with all of your points and most of those made by tyche. I would
sum it up this way:
1. Was Willow selected to go evil and Tara to die because they were
lesbian? Clearly not. JMHO, the writers chose Willow because they recognized AH's exceptional abilities
as an actor. Tara's death was a natural consequence of the decision regarding Willow.
2. Did
ME handle the story appropriately in light of the lesbian relationship? Borderline. They made 2 mistakes,
one in undercutting the magic/lesbianism metaphor of S4 with the magic/drugs metaphor in S6, the other
in having Tara's death associated with lesbian sex. The first of these highlights the problems Darby
mentioned.
3. Was the artistic effect worth the cost? This is bound to be a matter of opinion.
Mine is that it clearly was not. The cost is the loss of a very fine recurring character; the end of the most
important -- both socially and artistically -- couple on the show; and the destruction of a core Scooby
character. The magic/drugs metaphor was heavy-handed and ill-chosen, and the resolution in Grave was
contrived. AH is a fine actor, and she proved it again, but that is hardly compensation for these
defects.
[> [> [> Thank you tyche, Darby and Sophist -- Raccoon,
00:59:08 06/07/02 Fri
[> [> [> The Willow Story -- Tymen, 12:56:32 06/07/02 Fri
I
just wanted to weigh in here with something which i think people have avoided looking
at.
This Willow storyline has been in the making since the end of season two. Before she fell in
love with Tara and entered into that relationship.
As the writers have stated. If Oz had been
the one Willow was with, Oz would have died.
This has been built from the beginning. Willow
has never handled emotional pain well. The perfect example is Something Blue. (Although it has been
shown in other episodes, I can't remember them off the top of my head.)
She tries to bury the pain
first with alcohol and then with Magic. (It's our first connection of Magic = Addiction in a non-season 6
episode.) She uses the Magic to attempt to skip over the painful part and it backfires, because as Giles
states her energies are off due to her emotional distress.
So, we've seen this build up in
Willow's character coming for awhile now. So, we can't say it's sudden.
As for Willow going
bad with Tara still being alive. I don't see it. It couldn't happen. For Willow to go the Dark Phoenix route,
the one thing holding her in check had to be taken away from her in such away that it would shatter here
emotinally. As I stated before she doesn't handle emotional pain well and she dealt with it the way she
always does, by burying so deep within that it can't touch her. Under all the dark magics she can muster,
because vengeance is so much easier than grief.
Just my one post on the matter. Had to stop
lurking and say something about what I saw as a natural progression of the character and the story.
Amber Benson is a wonderful actress and Tara is a wonderful character. Stop the hate, neither
of them would want to be remembered in this way.
Tymen
[> [> [> [> I wasn't going to say any more on this topic
(well, at least for now), but -- Sophist, 13:29:24 06/07/02 Fri
I did want to
respond to a couple of your comments and to welcome you to the Board also.
As the writers
have stated. If Oz had been the one Willow was with, Oz would have died.
This is fair
enough insofar as the fact of Tara's death is concerned. I don't see that it affects the criticisms of the
manner of her death or the quality of the storyline.
As for Willow going bad with Tara still
being alive. I don't see it. It couldn't happen.
I certainly agree with this and said so. I can't
speak for others, but I think that there is general agreement that if it was necessary to take Willow that far,
Tara's death alone would accomplish it.
Stop the hate, neither of them would want to be
remembered in this way.
I'm puzzled why you included this sentence in this particular sub-
thread. None of the posters on this Board has used the emotional language found elsewhere. My own view
is that it's best to ignore rants, etc. and focus on the actual logical and factual parts of a post (if any). That
way we don't have to spend time reprimanding each other (a cycle that never ends), but can have a true
discussion.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I wasn't going to say any more on this
topic (well, at least for now), but -- Tymen,
13:47:06 06/07/02 Fri
I did want to respond to a couple of your comments and to
welcome you to the Board also.
Thanks for the welcome.
As the writers have stated.
If Oz had been the one Willow was with, Oz would have died.
This is fair enough insofar as
the fact of Tara's death is concerned. I don't see that it affects the criticisms of the manner of her death or
the quality of the storyline.
I didn't have a large problem with the storyline. It seemed natural
to me and progressed from the earlier seasons to this one.
As for Willow going bad with Tara
still being alive. I don't see it. It couldn't happen.
I certainly agree with this and said so. I can't
speak for others, but I think that there is general agreement that if it was necessary to take Willow that far,
Tara's death alone would accomplish it.
Glad that we agree.
Stop the hate, neither
of them would want to be remembered in this way.
I'm puzzled why you included this sentence
in this particular sub-thread. None of the posters on this Board has used the emotional language found
elsewhere. My own view is that it's best to ignore rants, etc. and focus on the actual logical and factual
parts of a post (if any). That way we don't have to spend time reprimanding each other (a cycle that never
ends), but can have a true discussion.
I've just been reading so much about the topic and
wanted to state what came to mind. Mostly that came from other boards I'd read. Sorry if it came across
heavy. It spoke to me. I'm up for the discussion thing.
Thanks for the
response.
Tymen
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I wasn't going to say any more
on this topic (well, at least for now), but -- Sophist, 14:00:36 06/07/02 Fri
If
you're up for the discussion thing, stick around. This is a good place for it.
I'm going to drop
the W/T stuff for now. I'm sure we'll all get back to it later. Regardless of which side you're on, at least it
diverted us all from Spike!
[> [> alternative genetic explanation @>) -- anom,
18:00:16 06/06/02 Thu
"I looked up Family to make sure that I had the ep title right,
and what is said there about witchcraft and X chromosomes doesn't really hold up - both you and I express
our X chromosomes, it's not an either-or between the X and Y. There conceivably could be a witchcraft
inhibitor on the Y."
Either that or it has to be on both copies to be expressed, & it's on a part of
the X that doesn't have a corresponding part in the Y--that could explain why it's so rare, even in women!
(Um, are there actually genes like that, Darby?)
[> [> [> Um, yes and no... -- Darby, 08:49:55
06/07/02 Fri
...But the weird things about female mammals (or birds, but the XX are
males there as I recall) is that, for all intents and purposes (you could apply your theory if magic gets
expressed in the early embryo), only one X gets expressed in any given cell - the other is shut off so that
X-gene expression is "equal" in both genders. It's that shut-off X that is used in most athletic federations
when making sure that the female athletes are really female (does anybody know if the European Track
Federation test still involves lifting the shirt??) - a quick Barr stain of a cheek cell reveals a Barr Body, the
unused X.
The 2 X's in a female are expressed on average across the body - there's an
explanation buried here for why "sex-linked" problems are on X genes but show up more in males - but
we'd have to get into a fairly unpredictable game of coin-flip-equivalent patterns to try to explain magic
this way. It's certainly possible - after all, no one would deny that there are differences between the
genders that are hard to explain totally due to one side having "Y" genes and the other not. And for the
most part (I'm getting in trouble with some genetics theories here, but from a practical standpoint of
expression I can say this) there are no shared pieces between the X and Y chromosome that would
produce the interaction you suggest. There's still a fair amount of disagreement about whether the Y is a
degenerated version of the X, to give you some idea of how different they are (at that level, the discussion
gets too technical for me to feel like I have an opinion on it). If I was trying for a biological explanation,
I'd move in the direction of female hormones or other expressed genetic differences. We have seen
evidence that both genders can manipulate magic, so in the population at large it doesn't seem an "either-
or" thing. Strangely enough, as a biologist, I feel more comfortable with a sociological explanation -
there's lots of stuff passed through the female (or male) lineage of a family that is experiential or
material.
[> [> [> [> Re: Um, yes and no... -- matching mole,
09:09:39 06/07/02 Fri
As I understand it most of the genes on the Y chromosome
have to do with making an individual 'male' so I would have to agree that the idea of having some genes
on the X that are also on the Y is probably not correct.
As Darby says there are lots of other
possible explanations involving the social environment or an interaction between genes and the
environment. A straightforward genetic alternative is that Tara's familial witch-craft is due to a sex-
limited gene rather than a sex-linked one. This is a more general case of Darby's possibility of a
witchcraft inhibiting gene on the Y chromosome. A sex limited gene could be on any chromosome but it
is expressed differently in the two sexes for whatever reason.
[> [> I never got the impression... -- cjc36, 10:29:14
06/07/02 Fri
Okay, I am, to state again, a straight male, mid 30s. When I watched the
episodes V,TTG,G for the first time, I did not get any assumptions about lesbianism at all . I had
long ago forgotten that there was anything different about Willow and Tara. It just was. Willow
and Tara belonged to each other.
In watching the episodes, I was shocked at Tara's death, and
at the same time hoping Willow wouldn't go too far in her grief fueled vengeance.
I realize
that early in the W/T relationship, spells and magick was used as proxy for lesbian sex. However, by
OMWF, maybe earlier, W/T were having a sexual relationship that was shown, as much as they could on
UPN. At this point magick = lesbian sex was de-linked in my mind. They were already sleeping together
in casa de Summers. They had what amounted to a foster daughter in Dawn. They also practiced magick.
Sex and magick were now exclusive. Magick was now a talent, sex was sex.
In Barganing I
and II, the use of magick to bring Buffy back and to defend against Razor and his gang was not, to me, in
any conceivable way anything to do with lesbianism - symbolically or otherwise. It was, again, a weapon
of defense.
At the end of the seasons, magick was a talent and the only weapon Willow
happened to have lying around when she went looking for Warren. If she had been good with guns,
Warren would have had holes in him instead of skinned. I never got the assumption - and unless I'd read
it off the net, never would have - that someone could take Willow's dark turn to mean lesbianism =
addiction. Or lesbianism = vengeance or evil or whatever.
Tara never wanted Willow to stop
having sex with her, she wanted Willow to stop using too much magick (proxy for chemical dependency
in this case). She wanted Willow to not be an addict anymore. Is this great symbolism from ME? No, but
that's what it had became, a drug metaphor.
I'm sad Tara's dead the way I was when Buffy
sent Angel to hell (and before I knew he'd be back). But when I watched the show I made no jumps to
conclusion about lesbianism - good, bad, at all. Willow and Tara were not 'lesbians' to me, they were
Willow and Tara, and I was sad Tara was dead.
[> [> The symbolism of magic (spoilers) -- Traveler,
16:36:26 06/07/02 Fri
"(and Traveler, if you think it's an orgasm metaphor, you're
being short-sighted; rewatch Family and any of a dozen other episodes. I mean, a rose?)
"
First of all, you are being a little insulting. I am not being short sighted. I simply do not
have photographic memory and didn't remember "Family" as well as you did. After reading the shooting
script, I can see your point, but I still stand by what I said before. Magic is much more often used as a
metaphore for sex/orgasm. Yes, magic is portrayed this way mostly between Willow and Tara, but it is
also shown as a sexual metaphore between Willow and Rack. This is confirmed when he calls her
"strawberry," a term for women who trades sex for drugs. In fact, all of her scenes with Rack had a very
sexual undertone.
Even in "Family," the metaphore wasn't as clear as you pretend. The
metaphoric formula suggested in this episode was Wicca=magic=lesbianism=evil. We discover that the
"evil" part of this formula was a red herring, but the question remains; if Tara worried that lesbianism was
evil, why wasn't she worried about its effect on Willow? I would suggest that in "Family," magic
wasn't really a metaphore for lesbianism at all. Rather, we were simply meant to draw parallels between
them. There is a world of difference between drawing a parallel and using a metaphore. We can say that
Willow has Paralleled Spike to some degree (thanks to Shadowkat for pointing that out), but we wouldn't
say that Willow stands for Spike or vise versa. They are seperate characters. In the same way,
magic has occasionally been linked to lesbianism, but they are still seperate entities.
"It is
disturbing that the "witchcraft = lesbianism" image was hijacked into a "witchcraft = addicting drug"
metaphor, and now we're surprised that people are seeing "lesbianism = addicting drug" and being upset
at the implications?"
I never would have guessed that people would be so possessive of a
metaphore. Let us ignore my arguments above and assume for the moment that magic has always been a
metaphore for lesbianism. Even so, magic as lesbianism and magic as a drug were portrayed very
differently and in different context. When Willow did magic with Tara, it was always shown to be a
positive experience. When Willow did magic by herself, it was often shown to be negative. The latter was
true long before she met Tara. In what way were the negative magic Willow did by herself ever linked
with the positive magic that she did with Tara? It never was. Thus, even if you believe that magic
always portrays lesbianism, you still must concede that it has been shown to be healthy when it is
shared between two people.
[> [> [> Re: The symbolism of magic (spoilers) -- Tymen, 19:55:58 06/07/02 Fri
I
never would have guessed that people would be so possessive of a metaphore. Let us ignore my arguments
above and assume for the moment that magic has always been a metaphore for lesbianism. Even so, magic
as lesbianism and magic as a drug were portrayed very differently and in different context. When Willow
did magic with Tara, it was always shown to be a positive experience. When Willow did magic by herself,
it was often shown to be negative. The latter was true long before she met Tara. In what way were the
negative magic Willow did by herself ever linked with the positive magic that she did with Tara? It never
was. Thus, even if you believe that magic always portrays lesbianism, you still must concede that it has
been shown to be healthy when it is shared between two people.
-----------------------------
Just a
thought. If magic represents sex/orgasm in some instances.
Does that mean that at the end of
Becoming Part II Willow, Oz and Cordelia were having a threesome?
(Just trying a little spicy
talk.)
[> [> [> [> Juicy! -- Traveler, 16:26:32 06/08/02
Sat
"Does that mean that at the end of Becoming Part II Willow, Oz and Cordelia
were having a threesome?"
You know I'm going to have that mental image stuck in my
head for the rest of the day, not that I'm really complaining. Alyson and Charisma are fine looking
women.
[> Re: Excellent Tara article -- J, 06:13:24 06/06/02
Thu
Second, Willow's story isn't about being gay?! Despite the fact that over the past
three seasons, her story has specifically been about her and the rest of the Scooby gang's coming to grips
with the fact? The story arc that started with Willow coming out as bisexual in Season 4 has become by
this past season about her direct affirmation of her lesbian self.
I think this is where the
author gets it totally wrong, and reveals that he probably didn't watch the show very closely during S5.
Willow's story arc over the past three seasons has very little to with her "direct affirmation of her lesbian
self" -- that was accomplished pretty much by the end of S4 and in the very beginning of S5. Willow's
choice in Tara over Oz in "New Moon Rising" (S4ABB19) and the fact that the issue was pretty much
ignored until a year later in "Tough Love" (S5ABB19) should confirm this fact. And while there has been
some scooby-gang grumbling over the course of the two seasons, once again the majority of this story-arc
(if it can even be called that) was complete by "Restless" (S4ABB22).
Willow's arc for the past
two seasons hasn't been about coming to grips with being a lesbian, it's been about her coming to grips
with being a weak-willed and self-doubting inner nerd. "Witch" and "Lesbian" are two roles she has used
to cover up her feelings of inadequacy -- just like "dating a guitarist."
[> Re: Excellent Tara article -- clg0107, 08:49:15 06/06/02
Thu
the homophobic members of the audience jumping up and down with
glee
Perhaps I'm naive, but how many homophobic audience members do you really thing
BtVS has left after 2-1/2 years of Willow/Tara being a going concern, and being accepted as "normal" by
the rest of the gang??
I can't imagine very many.
~clg0107
[> Re: Excellent Tara article -- zz9, 09:05:50 06/06/02
Thu
I came to this site from a link on the 'Board Now' Buffy posting board. Having read
this article and its follow ups I have to make some observations.
Tyche said "a storyline which
would have the homophobic members of the audience jumping up and down with glee."
Sorry,
but making a character popular and liked then killing them off is a standard dramatic tool in the movie
and TV world. Have a look at our board, the response to Tara's death has been sorrow for a favourite
character who will be missed. Is that bad from GLADD's point of view?
Every character on the
show goes through bad stuff. In the last six years Buffy killed an old boyfriend who had been turned into a
vampire, killed Angel, her then vampire boyfriend, Giles saw his girlfriend killed, Buffy tried to kill all
her friends, Angel turned evil and tried to kill everyone and so on.
The point is these things happen
in the show, and they happen to everyone. All the examples happened to hetrosexual characters and no
one has ever pointed out any 'Anti Hetro' bias. But the way the Tara death has been picked on here makes
it clear that if the same things happened to a gay or lesbian character then it would have been
uproar.
Magic was not a metaphor for lesbianisim. Magic has been on the show from day one
used by men, women, demons, straight and gay.
Willow's story is not 'about' being a lesbian.
She is a character who happens to be gay. I don't define my friends as 'gay' or 'straight'. They're just 'my
friends', I don't label people.
BtVS took a risk in having a gay relationship on the show. This
reaction shows that people think that being gay should be a 'diplomatic immunity' to having harm or
misery happen to them. What this fuss will do is make other shows reluctant to having a similar
relationship. Is that progress? Is that what GLADD want?
Progress, to me, is having people of
all races and sexualities be treated the same as everyone else, and on Buffy that means having nasty things
happen to them.
I remember reading Halle Berry say getting the role in the Flintstone movie
was a big deal for her because it wasn't a 'black' role. The script just said 'Georgeous Woman' and she got
it because of who whe was, not because she was black.
I think GLADD should be happy that
Tara and Willow were on the show, were a great, liked, happy couple and were portrayed exactly as any
other couple and if fans of the show will say "I liked Tara and I miss her" that is a great result.
http://messageboard.cinescape.com/Buffy/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi
[> Regardless of what you feel about W/T, this is a disgraceful
article -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 10:49:43 06/06/02 Thu
I haven't posted on
this debate before but I feel compelled to defend ME from this article, which seems to me to evince a
wilful misunderstanding of the show on the part of the writer. Although I think the whole debate is very
complex and I have a great deal of sympathy for the Kittens' arguments (though I don't quite agree with
them), this little tirade just seems to me to be unpleasant, indifferent to the way characters and metaphors
develop on the show and keen to exploit an 'issue' whilst ignoring the story.
The first thing
that disturbed me about the piece was the remark about the 'homophobic and pathological' portrayal of a
lesbian relationship that the writer believes himself to have been watching. This is overstated, if nothing
else, but what really bothers me is how much it jars with what I've heard about the writers' intentions. I
am aware that the writer is talking about what they finally created rather than what they intended to create
but the fact that he doesn't even take their intentions into account suggests a narrow approach and this
suggestion is confirmed as he continues to construct his argument.
A little bit later on he
talks about the 'social and political import' of Buffy and the 'messages' it sends out. This is the level upon
which he is engaging with the show - that of 'messages' - and it is certainly tempting to do this given the
extent to which certain episodes (particularly 'Family') have discouraged and criticised prejudice against
Willow and Tara (and, of course, many other characters). However, I don't think that ME is in the
business of making political statements (in fact I think I can recall Joss saying that they invariably sent
him off to sleep some time ago) so I find this entire level of debate very difficult to cope with. Buffy has
always dealt with characters first and stories second - 'issues' (and I think by that I might mean
'generalisations') have always seemed to be entirely irrelevant.
The writer of this article
actually criticises the 'soap-box oratories' of shows such as Dawson's Creek and then treats Buffy as if it
works in the same way - it doesn't! It is possible, as this writer has so ably demonstrated, to read Buffy in
an extremely negative way but only by disengaging oneself completely from the story and looking at a few
dubiously interpreted aspects of it in isolation.
In this particular case, the focus is on the use of
magic as a metaphor for lesbian sex in season four and then the use of magic as a metaphor for addiction
in season six. The writer's argument appears to be based on a very simple formula: lesbian sex = magic =
'addiction and pathology'. This formula is, of course, spectacularly inaccurate.
Magic was used
as a metaphor for lesbian sex. A metaphor. This, according to my dictionary anyway, is 'the application of
a name or descriptive term or phrase to an object or action to which it is imaginatively but not literally
applicable'. That was, 'not literally applicable'. Magic has at no point been the same as lesbian sex on
Buffy. Did Willow use lesbian sex to float a pencil into the heart of that vampire in Choices? Metaphors
on Buffy have always been loose and transient - their flexibility is what makes them so fascinating. Dawn
is often used to represent the childish side of Buffy but she is still a character in her own right. Vampires
represent emotional problems but they are still demons in a fantasy world. The instability of these
metaphors creates a mythology of unprecedented depth and complexity and leaves enough ambiguity to
allow the viewer to interpret the show to a very large extent as he or she wishes.
For this
reason, it is also wrong to say that magic = drugs in season six. Willow's abuse of magic has often seemed
very similar to drug use (arguably too similar - this is why so many people have been dissatisfied with this
storyline) but it is different. If it wasn't, all of the subtlety of the metaphor would be lost and it would
become a banal, 'issue'-based approximation of the writers' personal opinions on drug use. To suggest that
ME should abandon this complex use of metaphor for the sake of political correctness is to entirely reject
the soul of the show.
Having said that, I can of course see that this misinterpretation is easy
to settle upon. However, ME have dealt with it. This is from the shooting script of seeing red (from
Psyche):
WILLOW: Mmm. I forgot how good this could feel. Us. Together. (a
bit guiltily) Without the magic.
TARA: 0(soft) There was plenty of magic,
Will.
Here we see the differentiation between the 'magic' of their love and the magic Willow
uses to wreak vengeance on Warren in the following episode. A similar distinction is made when Tara
sings, 'I'm under your spell' both to mean that she is in love with Willow and that she is literally under her
control. The complex use of the magic metaphor here or rather the complex ways in which the two
metaphors of magic as love and magic as control interact lead to questions about balance in nature and the
moral neutrality of skills and objects that run through the whole of season six (and the whole of Buffy the
Vampire Slayer). It is absurd to vulgarise these ideas (and they are ideas, not 'issues') by claiming that
they all contribute to some sort of coded homophobia. However it is - and I think this might be a large part
of the problem - very easy.
So as the article powers into its grim conclusion, the writer can
confidently say, 'what angers me is how Buffy has transformed one of the most empowering and
progressive portrayals of lesbian desire, identity and commitment on network television into an experience
of degradation and addiction that leads to death'. This statement demonstrates clearly the twin problems of
a simplistic and unfair interpretation of the material and an eagerness to deal with 'issues' at the expense
of the story.
I am sure it is clear by now that I sympathise more strongly with ME in this
debate but that is not important at all here (the last thing I want to do is perpetuate this boring argument).
What I object to is the facile, sensational way in which this article approaches a very complex situation
and I hope that I have gone some way towards articulating this.
[> [> Very well articulated. You should post here more
often. -- Sophist, 11:05:15 06/06/02 Thu
I say this even though you can see, from
my post above, that I disagree with you. Notwithstanding the considerable emotion generated on this
issue, I remain convinced that it is possible to conduct a rational discussion on it.
[> [> LBR's back!! And better than ever! (Though LBR was damn
good to begin with!) -- d'Herblay, 11:11:44 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> Excellent - the request for more posts is seconded --
Rahael, 14:49:32 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> Adding myself to the heap of praisers--please remain
restless! -- Exegy, 16:14:40 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> Thank you all! -- Lurker Becoming Restless,
00:50:56 06/07/02 Fri
[> Re: Excellent Tara article -- JM, 10:50:23 06/06/02
Thu
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2002-06-06/arts.asp
This is a
link (I think) to an article with a similar viewpoint, though a slighty different stance.
[> insensitivity has its advantages -- skeeve, 12:23:46
06/06/02 Thu
If one doesn't notice a metaphor, one doesn't have to deal with it. Even
when a metaphor is pointed out, one often doesn't see what's pointed at.
Magic a metaphor for
lesbian sex? Nah. This one thinks that W & T's references to spells that keep them up all night are just
'lies' that aren't really intended to fool anyone.
Willow addicted to magic? I don't think so, at
least not before she went to Rack. Willow was into having her own way even before she discovered
magic. Remember all the reading she did of other people's files? People very rarely died of having their
files read, but when Willow brought that careless of other people attitude to magic, something nasty was
bound to happend eventually. Fortunately the people in the Bronze came back in better shape than the
cash register in the Magic Box.
Before Rack, there was no evidence that using too much magic
would have any psychological effect on Willow other than fatigue. She apparently did rather a lot of little
things, e.g. closing curtains, with magic that the rest of us, possibly including most witches, would have
done directly with hands. This one saw no evidence that Willow could not have built a house or a housing
project with magic and still not have an addiction problem. She might have had union or legal
problems.
My recollection is that there were people who thought that Angel putting the bite on
Buffy in Graduation was erotic. Whether or not I missed a metaphor, I don't want to date any of
you.
[> [> Geraldine & Christabel -- Cleanthes, 21:22:06 06/08/02 Sat
You know, as a Xena fan, I've heard a lot about this supposed clichè of the "inevitable" death
of the lesbians. Hmm, everyone born before 1890 is now dead. Death is pretty much inevitable, perhaps
even more so than taxes.
I've read so very many accounts of how all lesbian relations in art end
this way. Indeed, I well remember someone tracing it to the 1816 poem by Coleridge, 'Christabel'.
Except, the lesbians don't die in that poem. Yeah, the poem is unfinished. And, yeah, they probably
would have died if STC had been able to want to finish the poem. But he couldn't because his magic ran
out and I think it ran out because he wanted to leave them alive and so they still live in
that artistic place where fictional characters dwell in their final state. (Hamlet's dead but Horatio still
lives, for example.)
So, when you read that ALL lesbians die in art, well, it ain't so and it ain't
been so for 200 years tracing back to one of the first mainstream artistic portrayals.
. She took
two paces, and a stride,
250 And lay down by the maiden's side:
. And in her arms the maid
she took,
. Ah wel-a-day!
. And with low voice and doleful look
. These
words did say:
255 In the touch of this bosom there worketh a spell,
. Which is lord of thy
utterance, Christabel!
http://www-
sul.stanford.edu/mirrors/romnet/ckw/1816text.htm#part1
[> Re: Excellent Tara article -- I feel sick, 20:15:18
06/06/02 Thu
I can't believe this.
This is the most stupid, irrelevant article I've ever
read in my entire life. It's as if the writer is begging for gays and lesbians to be portrayed as victims. Tara
was probably the most moral, sensitive, open minded character of Buffy..and she was the GAYEST.
So to all you people running around and screaming that "they killed the lesbian", GET OVER
YOURSELVES.
If you want to reduce every homosexual to their sexual orientation and blame every
injustice on that, just remember that you are doing it to yourselves.
Oh, and just for the record,
happy lesbians rock.
[> [> Why would happy lesbians want to...Oh, I get it --
Arethusa, 05:05:10 06/07/02 Fri
[> Re: Excellent Tara article -- Q, 20:55:48 06/07/02
Fri
I just wanted to comment on the whole Willow/Tara thing, and this seemed like the
most logical place on the board to do it, even though this isn't really a response to the article
above.
It seems that a lot of people use this as a defense of ME in the Tara's death situation: "
Tara's death was NOT a punishment for lesbianism. She was killed by a stray bullet, totally
coincidentally, NOT by a homophobe who was out to punish her" (Granted, I see this on other boards, not
here as much). The problem with the argument is that it gives ME no credit whatsoever. If you are
looking at the LITERAL, then, no it wasn't a punishment. That truly would be like an after school
special. But if you look at it in a more symbolic, complex way-- it is easy to see how the dead/evil lesbian
cliche is at least one obvious way to do a reading on this subject. Since the show has LONG been
heralded more for what lies beneath than what is right on the surface, they are very much opening
themselves up for criticism when they don't care much about the OBVIOUS reading of a particular plot.
That being said, I would like to point out why I do not think it will cause THAT much harm
(by not giving much credit to the audience). Most mainstream TV viewers will NEVER view this as the
lesbian being punished. The mainstream viewer will ALWAYS look at the surface material, take it at
face value, and look at it all with a very simplistic point of view. To them, it will always be the "stray
bullet coincidence". Only 2 types of people will notice the possibly offensive material here 1) More
intelligent people who watch the show on a literary level, and look for levels in the story, ( I am not saying
that only the intelligent view this as a homophobic cliched storyline. I am saying that only people who
look deeper than base level will see this *possibility*, regardless of what side they take in the debate) and
2) people who *related* to the gay characters on some socially relevent level.
The event may
cast a shadow on the writers a little bit in some circles, but the mainstream viewing public will not be
effected as bad as some are saying, in my opinion.
(This post is not as effective as it could be,
because I am basically responding to a post I read days ago, and is long since gone. Since I can't find it, I
stuck my thoughts here on the only Willow/Tara thread I could find, and it lost a little punch. But I got
the remarks off my chest, and that was the real reason I posted-- the therapy of it all!)
Buffy/Spike vs Buffy/Xander -- Diana
Michelle, 01:36:16 06/06/02 Thu
Okay, very nervous here, as this is the first time that
I've posted a new post and not just replies.
I've been thinking about my feelings as a fan, not
just of the show, but as a 'shipper (believer in specific relationships).
I 'ship the people who fit
together in my eyes. And that's why I don't 'ship any particular kind of ship, be it 'best friends' or 'enemies'
or what have you.
Because everyone is different and I look at it case by case.
I 'ship
because of the people, not because of the relationship. My OTPs are always my two favorite characters in a
fandom.
Buffy/Spike can never work for me because it strikes me as highly unhealthy for Buffy
in so many ways (This is still true of souled!Spike. I can't see the good in having a sexual relationship
with someone who attacked you.). And the fact that Buffy also hurts Spike doesn't exactly help their case
for me. Especially since she hurts him a lot out of self-hate. And the idea of B/S!S also squicks me
because it's seems so Luke and Laura. Like it's saying that if a guy tries to rape you but then he says that
he's better and that he changed because of you, you owe him your body and heart.
I could
handle the sadness and wrongness of B/S. I could not handle it if they put them together next year.
Tara/Willow getting back together after what Willow did was bad enough, and I love
them.
Buffy/Xander works for me because, although they're similar and very close friends, they
still fight and challenge each other in healthy ways - they always, always stop the fight before too long
(Dead Man's Party; Revelations/Amends, Seeing Red). Xander is the epitome of what Buffy has always
claimed to want. He's a normal guy who likes her for her Slayerhood and just for who she is. All of who
she is.
[> No need to be nervous. -- Traveler, 01:49:50 06/06/02
Thu
However, it's hard to argue which character belongs with who, since it really boils
down to a matter of opinion. Personally, I like Xander and Buffy better as friends, but there are many
people who agree with you. Who knows; it could happen. What would happen to Anya, though? Xander is
her main connection to the scooby gang. Without him, it's hard to find good reasons to keep her on the
show.
[> [> Re: Anya's place -- Diana Michelle, 14:55:12
06/06/02 Thu
Which is a good point.
However, they've never had a break-up
where both characters stuck around and just had to deal with it and I could see that being fascinating.
Angel left, Cordy left, Oz left, Riley left. Anya hasn't left. She was still connected by the store (which is
destroyed now, though) and by her need to help (which grew stronger ep by ep).
Plus, she
seemed comfy with Giles.
[> Re: Buffy/Spike vs Buffy/Xander -- Elizabeth, 02:03:29
06/06/02 Thu
Regarding a SouledSpike/Buffy relationship: If you go by one
interpretation of the Buffyverse mythology it wouldn't be Luke and Laura it would be Laura and Luke's
remorseful twin brother Steve;). Personally I would like Buffy to be single next
season.
Knowing Marti, I feel that if ME did either relationship they would make the male
character involved into an obnoxious clone of Riley.
[> [> I think it also boils down to where you want the story to
go -- ramses 2, 06:30:38 06/06/02 Thu
And where you think it's been. As you
say, Xander would be good for Buffy because she just wants to be normal.(Sorry paraphrasing)I think
season six showed us that Buffy can never be a normal girl. That her wish to be is causing her great
pain.
Buffy has to accept that she's the Slayer. Instead of being afraid(The dream in Dead
Things)of what she is, she needs to discover herself. This season has had Buffy fleeing from that discovery
all while Spike is trying to find out.
You think Spike is bad for her. But, if he makes her confront her
fears, makes her start to question what it means to be a slayer again, then isn't that a good thing? Perhaps
her crying for Spike to stop in SR was more about Buffy rejecting her slayer side.
In wrecked,
Buffy is pretty freaked the next morning. She tells Spike only one vampire got her hot. And that Spike
was just convenient. She looks visibly upset. My theory? Only one vampire made a house crumble down
around her. She responded to Angel as a girl. A normal girl. She responded to Spike as a Slayer.
Remember later in the episode when Spike tells her it's her calling. She is terrified by what lies
inside.
I think next season we see a stronger Buffy, when she accepted Dawn's help in the hole,
I
think that was symbolic of Buffy embracing her emotions, her chi(mystical energy) and her slayerhood.
And by accepting herself, Buffy will be able to live normally.
[> [> [> Re: I think it also boils down to where you want the
story to go -- skyMatrix, 11:07:22 06/06/02 Thu
Perhaps her crying for Spike
to stop in SR was more about Buffy rejecting her slayer side.
I usually just lurk on this
board, but after reading this comment I felt like I had to respond. I apologize for launching myself with an
attack post, but that's how it is sometimes.
I guess what I want to say is, when is a
metaphorical interpretation going too far? In that scene, I saw a man (influenced by his demon nature, of
course) attempting to force himself on a (incredibly strong) woman, who was able to fight him off finally.
This scene is especially disturbing because most women in RL do not have slayer-strength, and the rapist
is usually successful.
So anyway, it seems to me that a lot of people are such fans of Spike that
they are desperately trying to find ways in which it wasn't Spike's fault or, even better, how it's Buffy's
fault. Is someone going to tell me that she asked for it?? I haven't read all the threads on the rape scene,
but maybe someone did try to claim that. If so, excuse me while I cry for the nth time that sexist notion
has been repeated.
So I guess, here we don't have the "asked for it" comment, but we do have
the notion that the rape scene somehow says something negative about Buffy rather than Spike. Her
refusing to be taken advantage of is supposed to signify that she hasn't reconciled her innner conflicts or
something. Does this mean that when she acknowledges her slayer identity, she'll know to just give in to
Spike no matter what?
Yes, Buffy has given plenty of mixed messages and treated Spike badly
on plenty of occasions, but in a moment such as that, the only thing important is the present. It's a cliche
too, but "no means no," and if that message is dilluted in fiction than it can be further dilluted in real
life.
Again sorry for the attack, but I felt motivated to respond, and I would like to say that I
am capable of greater coherency on occasion, so I apologize for the odd grammatical quirks.
[> [> [> [> Re: I think it also boils down to where you want
the story to go -- Ronia, 11:58:55 06/06/02 Thu
Do you ever wonder what would
have happenned if both Buffy and Spike had behaved well from the outset? If when she said "no" and
meant "yes" he had taken her at her word and refused to settle for the unrelationship she was seeking?
Call me crazy, but at the beginning of this season, something sort of unprecedented was starting. Yes, I
think there were issues besides romance involved for each of them. My question would be, when in real
life is that not true? To me it seemed to be all about choices ( a major theme of the season imo). Bad
choices were made by both Buffy and Spike, and while it doesn't excuse the behavior of either of them, it
did (imo) pave the road for both Spikes attempted rape and Buffy using him to gratify her desire to feel,
without taking his feelings into account. The differrence between the two being that Spike was willing.
Or was he? Did he not also say no on at least one occasion and be overruled? Did he not ask her
specifically not to start something she would not be willing to finish? There are no pat answers to this
scenario for me. Is one missuse of someones trust worse than another? I don't know. Looking back, it
only makes me sad, that they will never know what might have been had they showed some restraint and
some self respect. Respect for others might not have been a bad idea either. The most striking element of
the spuffy ship for me was knowing that once a thing is done, it can't be undone. You can be sorry, but
you can't take it back. Perhaps this applies only to well to the rest of the scoobies as well. I for one can't
wait "till October. Welcome to the board!
[> [> [> [> [> Agree--especially about the "Can't
wait 'til Oct." part ;-) -- Exegy, 13:06:28 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> I totally agree with you. -- Diana Michelle,
16:03:09 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> Re: Normal Girl -- Diana Michelle, 15:18:03
06/06/02 Thu
Actually, I didn't say "Xander would be good for Buffy because she just
wants to be normal.", I said that he loves both her human and her Slayer sides. He loves her as she is,
because of her abnormal strength, because of her attitude.
Sorry, but that is different than what
you think I meant.
[> [> [> [> I did say I was paraphrasing, hard to quote
when message -- ramses 2, 16:21:05 06/06/02 Thu
Isn't there in front of you.
Sorry. I still maintain people view BTVS differently depending on where they hope the storyline is
going.
I saw the episode where Xander gets her a job and then fires her for bringing her slayer
thing to work as underlining that while he admires her for her abnormal strength and her attitude, he
doesn't really understand her. I think that was the point of the season.
I can't believe a return to
quippy Buffy who slays at night and hangs with her friends is where BTVS is going. I think(And this is
just my opinion) we'll see a strong Buffy questioning the council and everything else she has perceived as
normal for her. Next season we finally get answers to you only think you know.
[> [> Re: Buffy/Spike vs Buffy/Xander -- Diana Michelle,
14:59:31 06/06/02 Thu
Actually, my perfect series ender would have all three of them
single but with romance possibility on the horizon (B/X together and W with another
girl).
Knowing Marti, I feel that if ME did either relationship they would make the male
character involved into an obnoxious clone of Riley.
You made me laugh! Hee. Also, do
you need 'obnoxious' when you already have 'Riley'? Hee.
[> Re: Buffy/Spike vs Buffy/Xander -- Rowan, 17:18:30
06/06/02 Thu
"Buffy/Xander works for me because, although they're similar and very
close friends, they still fight and challenge each other in healthy ways - they always, always stop the fight
before too long (Dead Man's Party; Revelations/Amends, Seeing Red)."
I think Xander is about
the worst choice any woman could make right now. He is the epitome of prejudice. Just look at how he's
treated Anya during the course of their relationship. He can't deal with her demon past and he's mocked
her in front of his friends. He continually has put down Spike as an 'evil soulless thing' while at the same
time advocating using him as muscle to hel the group. He tried to stake Spike because he slept with Anya,
for goodness sake! What right did he have at that point to monitor Anya's sex life? He left her at the
altar. Then he basically called her a morally tainted tramp to boot. He's shown an alarming
possessiveness towards his female friends and their sex lives.
Xander only reinforces the
prejudices Buffy is already subject to. He's her mirror, not her partner. She needs someone who forces her
to grow past her own preconceptions. That's Spike.
Rowan
[> Buffy/Xander ? (spoilers to Grave!) -- shadowkat,
18:29:10 06/06/02 Thu
Hi - clipped this from my above post on Tara and Dru b/c it
also works here. I'm not saying Buffy should be with Spike or anyone right now. This is just to show why
they won't and shouldn't put her with Xander. It also states why Willow shouldn't be with Spike or
Buffy.
Xander is Buffy's non-sexual confident, the brother figure as opposed to the father
figure - hence her inability to be sexually attracted to him - Buffy wants a father-figure not a brother.
Xander aids her in her fights without physical backup or sexual need. He does not act like her father, so
much as a mirror- the calm voice of reason/her heart. He is Pancho to her Don Quixote. Xander is the
confidant and the friend, to bring romance or sex into it would as Buffy long ago put it - destroy the
friendship that has become so vital to her. He's always been one of the girls (Prophecy Girl, Season 1 Btvs.
& Witch. Also see IWMTY and Into the Woods.) In some ways their friendship is more lasting and more
beautiful than a romantic liaison could ever be. It's important that he never be sexually involved with her -
because then she would be unable to heed his advice or understand it. It would be colored by emotion.
Unlike Angel and Riley - Xander acts as Buffy's conscience -yin personified. Metaphorically - if they were
linked romantically - these two would remain forever unbalanced = two yins and it would stop their
mutual journeys to enlightenment. (For this reason - it would be a mistake to put Willow and Spike
together. And for the same reasons it's a mistake to put Xander with Buffy, it would be a mistake to put
Willow with Buffy - because Willow serves as Buffy's sister self or the mirror to her yang, showing her the
positive and negatives of emotional or receptive responses.) Xander in many ways is more important than
Angel - because Xander shows Buffy what she can do without the super-strength, he represents her
psyche. Another way of putting it is that he operates as a mirror - showing her what happens when yin is
in balance and out of balance - see Xander's mistakes in season 3, his jealousy of Angel, his romantic
escapades in Season 1-2, and his tendency to see the world in black and white and to be very judgmental.
Or the positive aspects - when he talks Willow down in Grave or persuades Angel to help Buffy in
Prophecy Girl.
Remember Btvs does not have successful long lasting relationships - it's not a
soap opera or a romance, its a horror show with elements of soap opera and romance, so investing in
"ships" is masochistic, not that I don't do it as well - masochistic fiend that I am...but that's the way it is. ;-
) shadowkat
Restoration of the Soul (spoilery through BtVS and AtS
season finales) -- purplegrrl, 08:21:57 06/06/02 Thu
First, I want to
apologize for being so late with my thoughts on BtVS and AtS season finales.
For the past
couple of weeks I've been doing some work for a fellow writer who is writing a book on bipolar disorder
(in addition to my regular 40-hours per week job). I'm doing fact-checking and glossary/index work.
There was a statement I ran across in my research concerning seasonal affective disorder: "sunlight is
soul-restoring."
My first thought was what if this were true in the
Buffyverse?
Traditionally, the soul is associated with light and warmth. And we have seen this
association in BtVS and AtS: Buffy's afterlife experience, Cordelia becoming a higher being, when the
African demon restored Spike's soul, and the way an orb of Thessela glows when a soul passes through it.
Warm, glowing (and in several instances almost blinding) light is evident in each case.
Except
that it is not supernatural, but merely physical, a case could be made for sunlight restoring the
soul.
A vampire is a creature who is not only considered soul-less but who can be destroyed by
sunlight. No other demon that we've seen has this problem.
Perhaps sunlight really does
restore the soul of soul-less beings. But because sunlight is a purely physical phenomena with no
supernatural element, the restoration of the soul destroys rather than heals. The soul cannot re-integrate
with the body, and the body is destroyed (burned by the intense light).
Whether the sould is
restored using an orb of Thessela (Angel) or transferred directly into the body (Spike), an intensely bright
light is still evident and the creature still experiences the physical pain of re-integration. But the magic
element compensates and allows the soul to reunite with the body and the vampire is not
destroyed.
Any thoughts?
(BTW, although I haven't had a chance to read all the
posts concerning the BtVS season finale I'm sure there is much speculation as to exactly what happened to
Spike. IMO, Spike should have been a lot more careful in asking for what he wanted. How could a
supernatural demon (living in Africa, no less) possibly know about some little high-tech chip implanted in
Spike's head? When Spike asked to be made like he was before, the demon thought he meant human. So
Spike is not a vampire with a soul (been there, done that), but rather human William with Spike's
memories. On one level I feel sorry for Spike. But on another level I have to laugh at him - as usual, all
his posturing got him no where!)
[> Re: Restoration of the Soul (spoilery through BtVS and AtS
season finales) -- maddog, 08:40:21 06/06/02 Thu
Well, as someone who hasn't
been around, there are at least two schools of thought on this topic. The first being your theory, that he
was too ambiguous for his own good. And the second, which is the one I stick to, and that's that down
deep he really wanted to be human(to be what Buffy deserves) and that the ambiguous nature of the
comment was a writer's trick to keep the average fan sure he wanted the chip removed.
[> Re: Restoration of the Soul (spoilery through BtVS and AtS
season finales) -- O'Cailleagh, 08:46:01 06/06/02 Thu
Some really interesting
points here Purplegrrl. The Sun does have mystical qualities though (eg there are a number of deities
attached to it) and it it probably the mystical energy that the sun emanates that is responsible for the
vampdeath. Otherwise they could wear sunblock and not worry about it!
[> Not sure about the sunlight issue... -- Malandanza,
09:18:42 06/06/02 Thu
I think that sunlight kills vampires for the same reason that
crosses repel them or mirrors fail to reflect them -- it's part of the mythology.
But as for your
comments about Spike:
"BTW, although I haven't had a chance to read all the posts
concerning the BtVS season finale I'm sure there is much speculation as to exactly what happened to
Spike. IMO, Spike should have been a lot more careful in asking for what he wanted. How could a
supernatural demon (living in Africa, no less) possibly know about some little high-tech chip implanted in
Spike's head? When Spike asked to be made like he was before, the demon thought he meant human. So
Spike is not a vampire with a soul (been there, done that), but rather human William with Spike's
memories. On one level I feel sorry for Spike. But on another level I have to laugh at him - as usual, all
his posturing got him nowhere."
I couldn't agree more. Spike made human makes perfect
sense considering his wish and his impetuous act first, think about the consequences after they've
happened personality. Yet another scheme goes awry because he didn't bother to work out the details.
Spike turned into a vampire with a soul -- well, he asked to be like he was and he's never been a vampire
with a soul. The problem is that one of the ME writers has said he's going to be returned as a vampire
with a soul -- and that he went to Africa for the express purpose of getting a soul to make himself worthy
in Buffy's eyes. I'm hoping she's speculating, mistaken or lying, but JE is the source of all the Angel Part
II posts. There are just so many things that don't make sense with this scenario.
Dead Soul
had a theory that the chip would prevent Spike from killing himself after being souled -- if we extend that
theory, it makes perfect sense that human Spike would not be able to kill himself since he can't harm a
human being. And think of the impotence/castration issues! Can't kill people, can't kill demons, can't
even kill himself. What's he going to do with his free time?
Well, there's always
Dominoes.
[> [> Re: Not sure about the sunlight issue... -- purplegrrl,
09:29:24 06/06/02 Thu
***And think of the impotence/castration issues! Can't kill
people, can't kill demons, can't even kill himself.***
Isn't there a Greek tragedy along these
lines??
[> [> [> Speaking of Greek Tragedies... -- Malandanza,
20:41:01 06/06/02 Thu
Speaking of Greek Mythology, if Spike went to Africa to get
his chip out and ends up human or souled instead, I'd say he just made the top ten best Poetic Justice
moments.
Number one, of course, is this great scene from
Reunion:
ANGEL: You set things in motion -- play your little games up here in
your glass and chrome tower and people die. Innocent people.
HOLLAND: And, yet, I just
can't seem to care.
...
Darla, starting to appreciate what's about to happen, moves to
Holland, puts a friendly arm around him.
HOLLAND: Angel, please, people are going to
die.
Beat. Angel nods.
ANGEL: And, yet, I just can't seem to care.
And
with that Angel closes and locks the two big oaken doors on all of them.
or, if you
prefer it from Darla's perspective:
HOLLAND: I understand you girls have been on a
little... spree.
Darla glances down. The camera PANS with her to reveal a DEAD CUSTOMER
on the floor and a SALESLADY, wounded, bloodied, trying to crawl to safety.
DARLA: Is
that a problem?
HOLLAND: On the contrary... As a matter of fact, I was thinking why settle
for a spree, when you could have... oh... say, a massacre?
...
Darla and Drusilla, in
the doorway, dressed to kill and looking fine. A small trickle of blood drips down the corner of Dru's
mouth.
HOLLAND: Ladies. H-how--
DARLA: Your wife was kind enough to
invite us in, Holland.
DRUSILLA: Very sweet, she was...
She wipes the blood
from her lip with a finger and licks it off.
DRUSILLA: Like clover and
honey.
Holland swallows hard, unnerved, trying to appear composed.
DARLA:
Just think of it as our way of giving you what you want.
HOLLAND: (confused) What I--
?
DARLA: I believe you said something about...
TIGHT TWO on DRU and
DARLA as they SIMULTANEOUSLY MORPH into vamp face.
DARLA: ... a
massacre.
Number two right now is the Willow/Rack scenes from Wrecked
and Two to Go, but that may be just because it is still fresh in my mind:
RACK:
Relax. I'm not going to hurt you. But you have to give a little to get a little, right?
Willow
glances at Amy, who nods and whispers-
AMY: It's okay. It's over fast.
Willow's
terrified - but she submits as Rack reaches toward her again...
RACK: That's right. I'm just
going to take a little tour.
Rack places his hand on Willow's upper chest. As soon as he makes
contact, there is a magical BURST OF WHITE LIGHT AND SOUND, and WILLOW goes RIGID. Rack
closes his eyes - drinks her in. Delicious... After a long beat, he lets her
go.
...
RACK (cont'd) So tell me, Strawberry...
He gently
reaches out to touch her face, whispers into her mouth:
RACK (cont'd) What on this earth do
you want?
Willow reaches out, touching Rack's face in return. Gently at first, but then her grip
turns iron hard as she smiles.
WILLOW: I'm just gonna take a little tour.
And with
that Willow begins to SUCK THE ENERGY out of Rack. It's horrible instantly. Multi-colored tendrils of
light come ripping out of his head and body, directly into Willow. The second it starts, Rack screams and
we cut to:
So, want to help me fill out the top ten?
[> [> Well, there's always Dominoes. - LOL!! (NT) -- J,
10:22:57 06/06/02 Thu
[> A human with the vampire's memories has been done before,
too -- Masq, 12:53:34 06/06/02 Thu
Darla in AtS season 2. There really isn't a
whole lot here that would be fresh and new, given the possibilities. Only the chip makes it different from
the Angel or Darla scenarios. And, of course, Spike and William's winning personalities : )
[> [> Re: A human with the vampire's memories has been done
before, too -- Dochawk, 15:05:24 06/06/02 Thu
I think it was explored in much
greater detail (in terms of a parallel with Spike at least) in I Will Remember You. Angel became human,
but lost his vampire powers (as did Darla of course) and hated what he had lost and not even having
Buffy's love was enough to overcome it. But, he fgot a choice which I doubt Spike has.
[> [> [> Similarities are relative -- Masq, 15:51:54
06/06/02 Thu
I think the Darla case is more similar because Angel was an ensouled
vampire who became a human and Darla (the last time we saw her) was a soulless vampire who then
came back as human. For her, the change was instantaneous, she had no memory of the four-year interval
in between.
[> [> [> Angel's reasoning in "I Will Remember
You" -- Scroll, 17:16:52 06/06/02 Thu
You're right in that Angel and
Darla have both been used to explore human with vamp memories, but I can't agree with you regarding
Angel's reasoning for giving up his humanity in "I Will Remember You". Yes, he lost his vampire
strength and he didn't like that, but it wasn't a fear of being weak that made him choose to be a
vampire.
Angel understood that his purpose on earth (being brought back from hell by the
PTB) required him to serve humans, to be their protector. He knew that he and Buffy, people chosen to
fight the forces of darkness, didn't belong to their own selfish desires for happiness but were obligated to
put the rest of the world first. As a human, Angel couldn't save the people in Doyle's and Cordelia's
visions. And according to the Oracles, if Angel remained human, Buffy would have died much sooner
than she actually did. So he gave up his dream of being human for her sake and for everyone else's.
[> [> [> [> Re: Angel's reasoning in "I Will
Remember You" -- Malandanza, 09:32:35 06/07/02 Fri
"Angel
understood that his purpose on earth (being brought back from hell by the PTB) required him to serve
humans, to be their protector. He knew that he and Buffy, people chosen to fight the forces of darkness,
didn't belong to their own selfish desires for happiness but were obligated to put the rest of the world first.
As a human, Angel couldn't save the people in Doyle's and Cordelia's visions. And according to the
Oracles, if Angel remained human, Buffy would have died much sooner than she actually did. So he gave
up his dream of being human for her sake and for everyone else's."
Angel's reasoning
sounded a whole lot like rationalizations to me. Ordinary humans can do good in the Buffyverse --
Xander and Gunn being two fine examples. Perhaps part of it was that Angel didn't think he deserved
such a reward, but I think the main reason he was willing to throw away life with Buffy was the same
reason that Riley waited so long to get medical help -- he was afraid of he would lose Buffy if he didn't
have super powers (yet irrationally loses her to keep his powers).
Yes, the oracles did say that
Buffy would die sooner, but they were pretty vague about it. (And Angel is the "don't believe everything
that is written" guy -- how many prophecies concerning himself have been misinterpreted?). How much
sooner? A Year? A day? An Hour? And shouldn't Buffy have had some say in the matter? This was a
unilateral decision Angel made after he tried (and failed) to fight a demon on his own (and had to be
bailed out by his girlfriend). It was a decision more about ego and insecurities than about self-sacrifice
and saving the world.
Just wanted to say thank you to the generous responses
to my book review. -- Sophist, 09:24:17 06/06/02 Thu
Caroline: I love
GE&H. Another personal favorite is Horton Hatches the Egg: "I meant what I said and I said what I
meant, and an elephant's faithful 100 percent."
dH: Sterelny's book is fair and balanced,
leaning to Dawkins. Segerstrom did a complete history of the whole controversy, but she is so partisan and
unfair that she diminished the value of her effort.
[> Sorry it got archived so fast -- matching mole, 13:43:05
06/06/02 Thu
I still haven't decided what my choice as greatest book of the 20th Century
might be! I was actually hoping that the thread would stick around until this evening when I might have
time to think about it some more. Being short of time I read through your review pretty quickly and
looking over it later I noticed several things that I hadn't really absorbed the first time. Like Darby I'm
not likely to ever read the whole thing but you did give some excellent pointers about the parts I might
find the most interesting (the evo-devo constraint part, species selection, and the part about the modern
synthesis becoming rigid).
Can you post the titles of the books you mention in your aside to
d'H? When I have time I'd like to look them over. I could use the perspective. I guess the way I would
describe it is that I am inside a house (maybe in closet) working away at my task. I find out about the rest
of the house by various people poking their heads in the door and talking to me about it. You are outside
the house but you are walking around and looking in the windows.
As a side note I find it
difficult to respond when people ask me about Dawkins vs. Gould. It is difficult for me to judge, as an
outsider, Gould's stature as a paleontologist but it seems he must have been one of, if not the, major
figures in the field over the last thirty years. In contrast as a behavioural ecologist or as an evolutionist in
general I would have to say that Dawkins primary role is as a popularist. He is an eloquent advocate for
the power of natural selection but not really someone whose thinking has lead to any significant changes
in the field. Gould really did seem unique in that he was a major figure and on original thinker in
evolutionary biology who was eager to take his view to a broader audience and he had the skill to do so.
Pity that I can't agree with him more.
[> [> Books -- Sophist, 14:23:27 06/06/02 Thu
I'd be interested in your nomination for the best book of the 20th Century. In fact, I'd be
interested in the whole Board's opinion on this.
"Dawkins v. Gould" is by Kim Sterelny. As I
mentioned to dH, it's a fair and unbiased review of the controversies by an independent biologist. He
(she?) does lean to Dawkins' view of gene selection.
"The Sociobiology Wars" is by Ulrike
Sederstrom. This is a lengthy and very detailed social history of the various controversies surrounding
sociobiology, including all the related controversies between Dawkins and Gould. The book contains a
great deal of information (more than anyone wants to know, probably). Unfortunately, she is so highly
partisan that she applies an obvious double standard.
I agree with your characterization of
Gould and Dawkins. I have no technical ability to assess the validity of their views, but Gould makes good
arguments. That, of course, is not at all the same as being right.
[> [> [> Best book of the 20th Century -- d'Herblay,
14:48:22 06/06/02 Thu
Hmmm . . . I'm reminded of the fever of best-of lists that
plagued us two Decembers ago. I believe that Amazon's top ten of the century list had entries from Ayn
Rand, Robert A. Heinlein, J.R.R. Tolkein and L. Ron Hubbard, so special interest groups (and nerds are a
special interest group) tend to dominate. Reflective of this was that one poll on the best book of the
millennium was overwhelmingly won by the Bible, which was then disqualified (for tautological reasons),
and The Lord of the Rings was named the winner.
But the nature of this board is
antithetical to some grand consensus on the book of the century (unless we vote for the season two scripts,
volume two). I am very interested in hearing what obscure titles people come up with. I would like to say
though that I draw a sharp distinction (as any Philip K. Dick fan must) between best and my
favorite. The best book might be something trivial like The Great Gatsby or Civilization
and its Discontents, while my own idiosyncratic favorite (Crosstown Traffic, by Charles Shaar
Murray [a Buffybuff!!!]) blows any such quality book out of the water.
[> [> [> [> I don't expect agreement. I'm just looking for
what I might have missed. -- Sophist, 17:57:54 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> I'll bite -- dream of the consortium,
10:45:32 06/07/02 Fri
The 20th isn't exactly my favorite, reading-wise, but I'll throw
in my probably-dangerously-off-the-cuff responses:
Best fiction : Lolita
Best non-fiction :
Robert Caro's Power Broker
Most personally beloved fiction (as in, deep in my heart of hearts, which
book would I be most crushed if I could never read again): Same as when I was ten, The Once and Future
King, T.H. White
Most personally beloved author: Robertson Davies
Favorite author (as in,
whose books am I most excited to read or re-read): Iris Murdoch
Favorite author non-fiction: M.F.K.
Fisher
Favorite (and could make a good argument for best) short story writer: William Trevor
(Though on a desert island, I might beg for Shirley Jackson, too)
Fiction author I would like more
people to read: Tie for first Steven Millhauser/Dawn Powell
Author I consider most overrated: Tie
for first John Updike/
Joyce Carol Oakes
I know these sorts of lists are just about as
antithetical to serious discussion and understanding as you can get, but I find them completely addictive.
I would read a list of anyone's favorite books; I'm as hopeless before them as I am before the want ads
("oooh, look, someone is selling a collection of thrity bird cages for $50 - why would someone do that?
Who would have thirty bird cages to sell?"). Would love to see other posters favorites.
[> [> [> [> [> I loved Lolita -- Sophist,
13:03:32 06/07/02 Fri
But didn't you need to keep a dictionary next to you while
reading it? I sure did.
[> [> [> [> [> Hee--love The Once and Future King!
(My Personal Rave follows) -- Exegy, 15:18:51 06/07/02 Fri
I discovered that
book (actually, a collection of four books) at about the same age you did, and nine (relatively long) years
later I still recall it with the greatest affection. The work evokes the strongest of emotions; I've laughed
and cried every time I've read it. The progression of the work is amazing: I love how it builds from the
cheerfully innocent days of Wart (a boy who doesn't realize the glory--and the immense burden--of his
future title) to the tragic ending. We get the first hints of real darkness with Queen Morgause (her twisted
relationship with her four sons opens the second book just as her liaison with Arthur to beget another
child closes it, planting the seeds of doom for all). Then we move on to the tragic romance of Lancelot and
Guinevere (The Ill-made Knight is my favorite of the books, guaranteed to inspire some tears; the scene
where Guinevere drives her lover insane--beautifully executed). The last book deals with the dissolution of
Arthur's idyllic Camelot; the son he so wants to love (Mordred) proves the agent of his fall.
Arthur remains a good and fairly simple man throughout; he is that same Wart, grown up to
greatness and all the misfortunes that a kingship entails. One gets the feeling that this innocent boy of a
man has always been in over his head (especially with the removal of his mentor Merlin). He doesn't
understand why things should be so terribly complicated, why people can't just get along (as the geese
could). He wants things to be good and perfect--hence the dream of Camelot and the Round Table, hence
the desire to get along with his only son. But dreams are not reality; Arthur is sadly disabused of his
ideals. He becomes a cuckold, a pathetic figure who cannot hold his marriage or his kingdom together. He
is betrayed by those he holds most dear: his Queen, his best knight, and his son.
Yet Arthur
clings to his dreams even in his darkest hour. We see him passing the torch (the candle in the wind) to a
young boy--a young boy who is very much the image of the Wart who once was. And so we see Arthur's
ideals kept alive (if only in the innocence of youth). As long as the wind does not extinguish that candle,
as long as there are people who can dream--the possibility of Camelot will be kept alive. The possibility
may never be realized, but that is not the purpose of dreams. The purpose of dreams is to get us to work
for something better, to come that much closer to dissolving the boundaries between ourselves (the lesson
of the peaceful geese versus the warring ants). A beautiful close to a beautiful book.
And I love
the comic interludes that dominate The Sword and the Stone and continue to lighten the later, darker
books. The running gag of the Questing Beast--hilarious!
One final note to dream: I totally
agree with you about John Updike being one of the most overrated authors. I've read a few of his books
and I just don't see the appeal. There are so many novelists who are better.
[> [> [> [> [> And List of my Favorite Fiction (long but
still incomplete) -- Exegy, 16:31:08 06/07/02 Fri
I'm a voracious reader, so here
are just some of my fave works (not all of which I'd define as the "best" works).
For light
reading (so sue me, I'm a fantasy buff):
(in no particular order)
--collected fiction of
J.R.R. Tolkien (daddy of modern epic fantasy, must give him credit)
--Watership Down (The Plague
Dogs is disqualified due to a truly hideous ending, don't get me started)
--Chronicles of
Narnia
--Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series (not his Conan serials)
--Stephen King's works
(especially The Dark Tower series, It, The Stand, Pet Sematary, The Mist, The Long Walk, other
novellas/short stories)
--Robin Hobb's books
--Dragonlance stories (fond memories of my
youth)
--Redwall series (once again, youthful delight plays a part)
--Philip Pullman's His Dark
Materials trilogy (great juvenile fiction, by far superior to Harry Potter--although Potter also provides
entertainment)
--Where the Red Fern Grows (tearjerker)
--Lloyd Alexander's Prydain
Chronicles (more great juvenile fantasy, esp. The Black Cauldron and The High King)
--Madeline
L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time (youth classic)
--Lois Lowry's The Giver (another youth
classic)
For more serious reading:
--Shakespeare's plays (do I have to
explain?)
--The Divine Comedy (ditto)
--Don Quixote (ditto again)
--100 Years of
Solitude (this novel uses imagery to GOOD effect, the tie-in from the end to the beginning is amazing,
makes me almost cry)
--Gone with the Wind (sweeping romance with some realism thrown in, nice
characterization)
--Huckleberry Finn (there's a reason this is required reading in HS)
--1984
& Animal Farm (love dystopian visions, also any work that inspires the movie Brazil is good enough
for me)
--Brave New World (see above on dystopias)
--Heart of Darkness (can be analyzed on
many levels, great)
--Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged (don't agree entirely with her
Objectivism, but gotta give her credit for so clearly defining her philosophy in these novels)
--Anna
Karenina (only Tolstoy I've read so far, soon to be remedied)
--Lord of the Flies (nice
symbolism)
--Homer's works (esp. The Odyssey)
--The Oresteia (hee, the cycle of vengeance
described)
--The Snows of Kilimanjaro, other Hemingway stories
--The Aeneid (whew, almost
forgot)
--One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
--Spenser's The Faerie Queen (love imagery)
-
-Invisible Man (Ralph Ellison)
--Inherit the Wind (great play)
--satires (Moliere, Swift,
Heller)
--Chekhov and H. James (love psychological characterization)
Okay, I feel bad
because I'm blanking on some other great works. These are all I could think of offhand, but they're enough
to counterbalance all the derivative crap I've read in nineteen short years. If I had to pick the "best" of the
bunch, I'd go with Shakespeare's collected plays and The Divine Comedy. I can't choose between these
Western canon classics. They both get to share top honors.
This list doesn't consider nonfiction
works, of course.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And List of my Favorite Fiction
(long but still incomplete) -- Q, 21:11:59 06/07/02 Fri
A lot of great stuff listed
here! Loved "Lolita", and "Invisible Man". I also love the dystopias, " Animal Farm" and "1984", and
what about "The Hand Maids Tale". I think "Animal Farm" is my favorite because of the truly great
closing image! And for closing images in a novel, what about "The Grapes of Wrath"! And one more
dystopia-ish novel I am going to throw a bone to: " A Clockwork Orange". Critically bashed at times for
it's didactism and simplicity, not to mention the cop-out ending, it NEEDS kudos for the way it was
written. Though it will never rank as one of the best because of the story or plot, I think it deserves to
rank as one of the best because of its form. Written to mimic a classical symphony, with three movements
exactly in proportion with each other (7 chapters each), it develops the way a composer of music would,
introducing the theme, then developing the theme through musical tools such as inversion and retrograde.
Wonderful stuff if looked at through a musicians eyes. Also loved how it created it's own wonderfully
catchy language! Plus, ME owes SO much to it for the entire Spike story line, that it must be
acknowledged by Buffy fans!
So many great novels, but " A prayer for Owen Meany" was
brought up earlier this week, and so I don't want to overlook that, either. And since "Invisible Man" was
brought up, what about the works of Richard Wright, like "Native Son".
You know, we could
probably go on forever with this (off) topic!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree. The final images of
Animal Farm (and 1984) are great! (Spoilers for mentioned works) -- Exegy, 07:04:31 06/08/02
Sat
Those farm animals tried to establish their utopia; they had all the good intentions.
But somewhere along the way the ideal failed--maybe it was when the power was offered to one class for
the others' "own good." Yeah right. So after all that struggle, one tyrannical dictatorship replaces another.
By the time the pigs morph into the human oppressors, the transformation is complete.
I guess
Orwell really is concerned about the need for an informed public (as indicated by the lesson of the
constantly rewritten rules). An educated people would have never allowed such a perversion of the ideal to
take place. Poor dumb people (uh, farm animals). Poor Boxer, symbolic of the worker who gets used and
then discarded. I always shake my head when I think of him toiling away for those tyrranical pigs. It just
goes to show you how easily people can be deluded. Sometimes people act like sheep, too.
In
1984, we see an even more entrenched tyrrany. Winston Smith, symbolic of the everyman hero, fights for
his individual dreams (the desire to return to an idealized past). But in the end his dreams are shattered
(the crystal paperweight that represents his sheltered world with Julia breaks). It doesn't matter if an
actual bullet strikes his spine in the last scene. His death as a human individual has been completed. No
independent thought can exist for long in the nightmare world of 1984. Chilling dystopia (but one that is
subverted in the movie Brazil, in which the individual spirit emerges triumphant ... if only in
madness).
Oh, another dystopia I can recall is Zamiatin's We. And also Miller's A Canticle for
Liebowitz (a new dark age for man). I didn't mention these works before because they are not among my
favorites. There's always Fahrenheit 451, but I never read that (hangs head in shame).
Um,
thinking of other good works and authors....
I don't think I mentioned Matheson (specialist in
short works of horror such as "Born of Man and Woman" and I Am Legend). Or Philip K. Dick, the
science fiction writer. Or Flannery O'Connor. Not sure if these people should be lumped together, but oh
well.
Then there's Hawthorne ("Young Goodman Browne"), Crane (naturalism is good in
small doses), Sophocles (Oedipus Rex), Ibsen (great plays), and Flaubert ("A Simple Heart," what a great
short story). And I agree about A Clockwork Orange. Okay, I know I'm still leaving out worthy authors
that I have read. I guess I'll throw a bone to Faulkner. You already brought up Steinbeck. Dostoevsky
needs to be mentioned. Melville and Hugo, too (hey, we need Hugo if only for the ref to The Hunchback of
Notre Dame). Oh, and Beckett (Waiting for Godot, that's been mentioned in a joke, I believe).
Moving more on topic, what other great works have been mentioned on Buffy? (Lolita ref--
check)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> BOOKS & AUTHORS!
YAY! -- FriarTed, 10:11:15 06/10/02
Mon
Love Ayn's ATLAS SHRUGGED (& wouldn't SMG make a great Dagny in a
movie version- as would Emma Caulfield); CS Lewis's NARNIA books, & his little recognized TILL WE
HAVE FACES.
For those who champion 1984, I counter with Aldous Huxley's more subtly
terrifying dystopia BRAVE NEW WORLD- more sinister because it's so happily soulless.
Got
a soft spot for Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN, Stoker's DRACULA (in which I think the most profound
character is poor conflicted & ultimately heroic Renfield), and -gasp- the turgid Right-wing
potboilers DEAR AND GLORIOUS PHYSICIAN and CAPTAINS AND THE KINGS by Taylor
Caldwell.
[> [> [> Quick correction -- Sophist, 15:16:53
06/06/02 Thu
I should know better than to post from work. Here are the correct title and
author of the second book:
"Defenders of the Truth" by Ulrike Segerstrale.
[> [> [> Best book -- matching mole, 05:27:22
06/07/02 Fri
first of all thanks to sophist and d'H for the further book
information.
I find it pretty impossible to pick out a best or most enjoyable book. There are so
many and the time of life and the order in which I read them probably are as important as any intrinsic
qualities of the books themselves.
However I can fairly definitely say what the most influential
book of the 20th Century was for me, personally. It is A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of
Eastern North America (first edition) by Roger Conant. My parents gave me this book when I was eight
or nine years old. My detail oriented mind devoured it. Everytime we went on vacation I would scour the
species distribution maps at the end to see what wonderful creatures I might encounter. My original copy
dropped into a lake out of a boat and rained on several times. The binding is reinforced with several
layers of masking tape (Red Green had yet to teach me about the wonders of duct tape in those days). It
had a greater effect on what I've done since then than anything else I've ever read.
That's
probably a lot more information than any of you wanted to know.
[> [> [> [> Re: Best book -- Rahael, 07:56:02
06/07/02 Fri
Best book of the century? So many to choose from!
d'H made the
important distinction between 'best' and 'most liked'.
But one book fits both criteria - 'A la
recherce du temps perdu' - Proust. A delight to read all the way through. I read it on the long vacation
after my first year at University. I wasn't expecting that much, but it so captured my imagination that I
carried the huge volumes with me to my summer job and back, reading it whenever I had a spare moment.
Whole passages from are still vivid for me.
Other 20th books I think are excellent, and which
affected me strongly: 'The Magic Mountain' and 'Doctor Faustus', both by Thomas Mann, 'A Handful of
Dust' by Evelyn Waugh. 'The Good Soldier' - Ford Madox Ford. 'Portrait of a Lady' and 'The Golden
Bowl' by Henry James. Ulysses by Joyce.
I actually don't read very many modern novels, apart
from children's books.
(and just a little aside re the World Cup. Yes! Yes! Yes!!!)
[> [> [> [> [> Interesting -- matching mole,
08:41:41 06/07/02 Fri
I've never read Proust or Mann at all. I love both Waugh and
Ford but I tried to read a Henry James novel once and after three attempts to get through the first chapter I
gave up. I don't remember which one it was now. As for Joyce I loved Dubliners but have never read
Ulysses.
Your examples point out the difficulty I would have in picking out a favourite. I
really admire the writing of Ford and Waugh (and Joseph Conrad and Graham Greene who I would judge
as somewhat similar near-contemporaries). But I don't know how I would compare them to John Cowper
Powys who is clearly technically not nearly as effective a writer but whose view of reality seems so much
richer than that of the previous authors.
And as for most enjoyable. The first P.G. Wodehouse
book I read (Laughing Gas) caused me to fall off the couch in hysterical laughter (not something that
happens to me very often). But that was pretty context dependent - it was the first one I read not the 15th.
And I was 15 rather than 40.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting -- Rahael,
09:04:58 06/07/02 Fri
It definitely depends on which James novel you read. His
'Awkward Age' was one of the most painful novels I've tried to read. I persisted (rereading chapters,
thinking surely, these are words, and I can comprehend them?) but I had to give up
eventually.
I used to love PG Wodehouse too, until I realised that once you've read one novel,
you've read them all. I had to stop reading them now. Perhaps I can revist them after a long
break.
I think you'd like Mann, though he does share some of James' opacity. I think I would
recommend Dr Faustus over Magic Mountain to you, though both are great.
Thank you for
recommending Powys to me. He goes straight to the top of the list!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wodehouse, etc. --
leslie, 09:56:21 06/08/02 Sat
The
thing about Wodehouse is, you don't read him for the plot--the plot is just there to hold together the
sentences. You read him for the sentences. "He looked like a man who had drained the wine cup of life to
its lees, only to find a dead mouse at the bottom." Wodehouse is (one of) my gods.
I also love
Michael Malone, especially his novel _Time's Witness_, which I seem to reread at least once a year. (His
most recent novel, _First Lady_, is unfortunately not his best, but its publication seems to have led to all
the rest of his novels coming back in print, hurray!) Anyway, Time's Witness is about justice being served
after a very long time, and I tend to read it when I am feeling completely overwhelmed by society--it
reaffirms my faith in humanity.
And Haruki Murakami, especially _The Wind-up Bird
Chronicle_. Calmly surreal. Like nothing else I've ever read.
Tim Powers, especially _Last
Call_, _Earthquake Weather_, and _Expiration Date_. Best use of Western mythology in a modern
context, verging on Buffy-ish.
Incidentally, for anyone interested in placing the Ripper Giles in
a cultural and historical context, I am currently reading _Turn Off Your Mind: The Mystic Sixties and the
Dark Side of the Age of Aquarius_ by Gary Valentine Lachman--highly recommended! (As far as I can
tell, it's only published in the UK, but you can get it easily from Amazon.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oooh, another Haruki
Murakami fan! -- ponygirl, 08:18:56 06/10/02 Mon
Such odd, deadpan, and
poignant weirdness! I love his stuff even though I'm never sure I quite got it. Hard-Boiled Wonderland
and Wild Sheep Chase are my faves, though his short stories are great too. Reminds me I should hit the
bookstore and get Sputnik Sweetheart in paperback.
[> [> [> [> Best books -- Sophist, 08:51:06
06/07/02 Fri
There were 2 books which affected me that strongly in childhood. The first
(you may appreciate this) was "In the Days of the Dinosaurs" by Roy Chapman Andrews. My parents read
it to me so often, I memorized it before I could read.
The other was "Patrick Henry, Firebrand
of the Revolution", which I read in 5th grade. From that moment on, I wanted to be a lawyer.
I've since learned to judge the legal profession and Patrick Henry a little more objectively. But
I still love dinosaurs.
[> [> [> [> Re: Best book -- Darby, 10:18:23
06/07/02 Fri
I feel profoundly unqualified to weigh in on best book of the 20th Century,
but now that we've moved into the realm of the personal I've got my selection, a book that shook my
worldview to its core and reshaped it in many ways.
I was a teen, absolutely certain of
my "self" and confident beyond all reason over a gooey jelly center. In no way, shape, or form a
Christian, but rather a somewhat vocal (but tolerant, I like to think) atheist. Okay, what the hell is he
building to...?
It was The Screwtape Latters, by C.S. Lewis. Even forgetting that Lewis
is (I think) the best prose imagery writer, the subject matter was full of such insight that it made me doubt
every decision I had ever made. For a while, it frightened me more deeply than anything ever has - what
if there really were unseen entities steering your thought processes for their own ends? Of course you
discount it, but isn't that what they want you to do?
This is why I pop into every
discussion we have about Postmodernism, which is about how no decision is entirely internal, but rather
impacted in subtle but definite ways by our culture and experiences, the "devils on our shoulders." I don't
fear a literal devil in my mind, but I'm very careful about analyzing the possible motives in everything (I
was just snapped at this past weekend by a friend because I treat every study she tells me about with
skepticism - she was seeing it as pure negativity directed at her, but that kind of proves the point).
This is also why Normal Again struck a chord with me, and why my first instinct in
any Buffy discussion is to consider the writers' intent and the constrictions of the
medium.
And Sophist, I too devoured any and all dinosaur books as a youngster, but my best
dinosaur memory was in going to the studio of Louis Jonas, who did the life-sized dinosaurs for the NY
World's Fair, and getting a private tour of his studio where he tried to stump me with a series of small
study sculptures that literally were all around the room on shelves. I will forever have negative feelings
toward the Corythosaur, the only one I didn't know, but it set me on my career
path.
Gee, I used to have a memory...
[> [> [> [> [> You're so lucky -- Sophist,
10:37:00 06/07/02 Fri
As an east coaster, you had the Museum of Natural History, as
well as access to a studio like that. I'm envious. We have lots of sabertooth tigers here in LA, but are
woefully short on dinosaurs.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Best book -- wina, 14:36:23
06/07/02 Fri
books and more books, wish I had the time to read them all. favourites books
are: Don Quixote, Middlemarch,Moby Dick, the book of disquiet, authors Saramago,
Yourcenar,Dostoyevsky and so many others
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Best book -- Brian,
07:04:08 06/08/02 Sat
Not the best book of the 20th century, but a book that had a
profound effect on me was Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. I read it when I was of draftable age, and after
reading it, I realized that I would do anything in my power to not go to Vietnam. But Fate intervened, and
I was spared.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great book. -- Sophist,
08:19:35 06/08/02 Sat
The only other novel that compares to it (JMHO) is All the
King's Men.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Best book --
mundusmundi, 17:07:33 06/08/02 Sat
Catch-22 made me laugh louder and
harder than any other book I've ever read, though Richard Russo's recent Straight Man, a biting
yet humanistic satire of academia (definitions of satire being arbitrary, of course), comes
close.
I've been bitterly disappointed in some of the latest literary raves. Russo's Empire
Falls, which won the Pulitzer Prize, I found dismayingly hollow: it's a great comic author striving too
hard to be a Serious Artist. And Manil Suri's The Death of Vishnu takes a fascinating culture and
reduces it to a hermetically-sealed tenement inhabited by a bunch of uninteresting, thinly-sketched
characters, whom the author treats with alleged sensitivity yet in actuality (it seems)
contempt.
I'm embarrassed to say I've read so few of the classics mentioned by others here that
I can't fairly say what the best book of the 20th century is. I'd agree that 1984 may be the
book of the century, though it depressed me to no end. The author whose books I eagerly await more than
any other (and lordy does he keep you waiting, every 3-4 years or so) is Martin Cruz Smith. I think his
Arkady Renko quartet of Russian detective novels ranks among the greatest suspense series ever; and
Rose, an extraordinary "mystery," penetrates to the heart of Victorian England more deeply than
any book I've ever read.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Catch -22--Yes! -- Q,
21:39:35 06/09/02 Sun
I remember reading "Slaughterhouse Five" around the same
time and loving that, too!
[> [> [> [> Re: OMG I had that book, too! -- dubdub,
20:43:16 06/07/02 Fri
Don't know if it was the first edition or not, but I grew up in
Ontario and spent many hours searching for snakes and skinks in the middle of
Toronto!
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> Did you find any? -- matching mole,
16:00:28 06/08/02 Sat
That was a disappointing aspect to the whole thing - the
promise that exotic things could be right in your back yard and never, ever seeing
them.
Second edition came out in the seventies so if you had the same book, you almost
certainly had the edition.
[> [> Re: Sorry it got archived so fast -- d'Herblay,
14:30:42 06/06/02 Thu
One of the books Sophist refers to is Kim Sterelny's
Dawkins Vs. Gould. It's something I mentioned in chat yesterday as having ordered from Amazon
but forgotten to take out of the box. It's short, occasionally eye-glazing but mostly readable, and seems fair
to both.
I have no idea what the book by Segerstrom is (a quick search on Amazon reveals no
likely candidates). There seems to be a growing genre of books dedicated to the Dawkins/Gould rift: I
think there are at least four. I enjoyed Andrew Brown's The Darwin Wars, though I had to ask
someone in England to bring me a copy. It's more gossipy than Sterelny, and won't lead anyone to a
conclusion about the scientific merits of either's positions. Unlike Sterelny, though, Brown treats Gould
and Dawkins as representative of a larger debate: he says that were people more aware of the science
rather than the popularizations, the debate would be thought of as Lewontin vs. Maynard
Smith.
Fights are fun, but I think this current trend of treating evolution as a clash between
Gould and Dawkins neglects the important areas which neither of them treat. I need to get back to the
Mayr if I'm ever going to get a real sense of what's going on in evolutionary biology. Can anyone tell me
where I can find a sensible explanation of Motoo Kimura's neutral theory?
[> [> [> Re: Sorry it got archived so fast -- Sophist,
15:20:09 06/06/02 Thu
I got the name wrong. Just corrected it.
Gould
discusses Kimura at length in Structure. Of course, you have to read about 1000 pages to get there....
[> [> [> OT and semi-technical -- matching mole,
16:02:31 06/06/02 Thu
I'll ask my wife about an explanation of the neutral theory. A
very brief summary is that a lot of genetic variation has no (or almost no) affect on the fitness of
organisms. Genetic drift (random changes based on sampling error) and migration between populations
are the primary forces governing the evolution of such genes rather than selection. This is of great interest
to population geneticists because they are interested in explaining genetic variation among organisms
within populations and between populations. It is of little interest to paleontologists or behavioural
ecologists because they are primarily interested in the evolution of important phenotypic traits that are
unlikely to be selectively neutral. One possible place to look for an explanation is in a book by William
Provine - I think its called 'The History of Theoretical Population Genetics.' or something similar. I can't
really remember it very well but Provine is a historian rather than a biologist so hopefully it's not too
inaccessible. Coincidentally shortly after Gould died my wife and I were discussing him and she said that
she considered the neutral theory the most important development in evolutionary biology since the
Modern Synthesis. She's a geneticist through and through - I'm more interested in the
phenotype.
The Brown book sounds interesting. The linking of Lewontin and Gould makes
sense from the standpoint of their interest in Marxism (which, oddly, they share with Maynard Smith's
doctoral advisor J.B.S. Haldane), their personal friendship, and their distrust of adaptive storytelling and
opposition to sociobiology. However Lewontin is the senior establishment figure in American population
genetics. Of the approximately 20 faculty that were in the department I got my Ph.D. in during my time
there no fewer than 5 had worked with Lewontin at some time or another. These people would share
Lewontin's skepticism towards sociobiology to a greater or lesser extent but they would tend to be firmly
opposed to Gould's ideas about species selection and higher order macroevolutionary processes. Or at
least they wouldn't find them interesting enough to argue about.
Maynard Smith is clearly
aligned with Dawkins in having the stong belief in the efficacy of natural selection that most British
biologists seem to have inherited from R.A. Fisher.
One of the difficulties with plunging into a
lot of modern evolutionary theory, especially involving genetics, is that it is often very mathematical and
not easily grasped, even by other biologists. Once upon a time I had the priviledge of being in the same
room with Maynard Smith and he was asked (by a graduate student far bolder than I) what he thought of
the work of a then recently famous theoretician who had developed a whole new series of models of the
evolution of traits affected by many genes. He replied that he did what any sensible person did when
reading such papers - read the introduction and the conclusion and took what was in between on
faith.
Having said that I do think that Mayr is a good place to get a broad perspective on
evolutionary biology although he is definitely not a geneticist. Another senior figure who has written at
least one late career 'big picture' book is John Bonner. Both Haldane and Maynard Smith have written
popular books on evolution but they are old (the books that is although Maynard Smith is definitely old as
well and Haldane died in 1964) and probably very difficult to come by. Maynard Smith has also written
books on a number of more specialized topics including a recent one on major evolutionary innovations. I
wouldn't recommend that my worst enemy read R.A. Fisher's The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection
(which is probably the root of all evil in the eyes of Gould). This book is considered perhaps the most
important work in evolutionary genetics of the first half of the 20th century. Although non-mathematical
the prose style is so contorted as to be almost unreadable.
[> [> [> [> John Bonner? -- d'Herblay, 16:39:56
06/06/02 Thu
I'd been eyeing his The Evolution of Culture in Animals but hadn't
realized he had a wider book out. I'll keep my eyes open for it!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: John Bonner? -- matching mole,
07:30:20 06/07/02 Fri
I believe that he has written a book that discusses issues in
evolution/biology that he found particularly interesting. I don't think there's a central theme. At least
that's my vague recollection from when I was looking over general books on evolution for readings for an
intro bio class last year.
I asked my wife about explications of the neutral theory - she wasn't
able to think of anything better than my Provine suggestion. I got my explanation from A Primer of
Population Genetics by Daniel Hartl (Sinauer Press) which is just what the name indicates, a short
introduction to the basics of the field.
Quick spoilery season 7 spec re: Spike -- Rob,
11:23:38 06/06/02 Thu
I was just thinking about how Buffy thought she had come
back wrong, but she was actually perfectly fine, physically at least, and how "Buffy" has a track record for
providing plot twists that end up delivering the last thing we'd ever expect, and making it deeper than
anything we would have expected. Another example: the idea that Buffy this whole time had actually not
been saved from hell, but yanked out of heaven.
People have been having endless debates about
Spike's soul...How will it change him as a character; is he redeemed? etc etc.
But I just had a
thought about what might happen, that could tie in to past events on "Buffy."
What if Spike's
soul doesn't change him at all? What if he discovers that the combination of the chip/his slow
metamorphosis into someone who fights for the side of good and is in love with Buffy, etc. were a "soul"
all along and this physical gaining of a soul was not actually needed? I'm thinking now of "The Wizard of
Oz," where the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion are all given what they have requested from the Wizard,
but these gifts are only physical manifestations of things that were within them all along. Even though the
Scarecrow didn't have a brain, he was always smart...and that's all that matters. The diploma he is given is
only validation. Even though the Tin Man didn't have a physical heart, he was the most loving character
of all...and that's all that matters. The clock/heart he was given is only a validation. Likewise, the
Cowardly Lion didn't need that "Courage" medal. He had courage all along.
I think
that the discovery that having a soul doesn't change him at all could be the most profound revelation he
could be capable of having.
Rob
[> Re: Quick spoilery season 7 spec re: Spike -- Arethusa,
12:13:04 06/06/02 Thu
If that were true, I don't think ME would have done the AR
scene, which I assumed was to emphesize that Spike can't be a good person without a soul. Sure, he can
do good, but his motive can't or won't be pure unless he is souled. Borrowing from Exegy, he can climb
the stairs to be on Buffy's level, but he'll always fall eventually, because he doesn't have a moral
compass.
I don't think Spike's new soul will change him much, for practical as well as
philosophical reasons-he's so close to human, even before he's vamped, and he's enormously popular as a
bad boy.
But-the soul could be the validation *Buffy* needs to accept Spike. It would be very
interesting to see Buffy realize that there isn't much difference between souled and unsouled Spike.
Which would put a new light on her relationship with Angel, as others have said.
[> [> Re: Quick spoilery season 7 spec re: Spike -- Rob,
12:44:01 06/06/02 Thu
But perhaps the SR scene was a red herring, to make the
audience, and Spike, believe that it is his lack of soul that caused him to do that. But the fact is humans,
people with souls, rape other people. Spike's reaction here may not have been a supernatural evil, but the
dark side lurking within everybody.
Maybe Spike is blaming his lack of soul on the rape
attempt just as Buffy was blaming the idea that she came back wrong for the reasons that she had trouble
connecting and coping with the world after being brought back to life...
Maybe the fault
doesn't lie in his physiology, but in his psychology, as it did with Buffy.
Rob
[> [> [> Above response has a small spoiler for SR. --
Rob, 12:45:14 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> Re: Quick spoilery season 7 spec re: Spike --
dream of the consortium, 13:04:45 06/06/02 Thu
I'm with you on that, mostly because
he attacks her in human face, not vamp face. Yes, his dual nature is in play, but it's not the demon versus
the human, just the good versus the bad, same as everyone. And the crime was so human, borne of
desperation and anguish and alcohol and frustration and anger. He didn't try to turn her, he tried to rape
her. That's a man's crime.
Part of me really wants to see him come back as William - and I
mean really as William, poetry-spouting, wimpy, fraidy-cat William - and learn to be strong again. I think
it would be good for Buffy and viewers alike to have to deal with why we like Spike's sensitivity when it's
all wrapped up in the bad boy persona, but not when it comes with the usual accoutrements of fear,
nervousness, and so on. Also, we haven't had a truly wimpy character since early Wesley, and I don't even
consider Buffy Wesley to be a real character - he was a cartoon, in a way I can't imagine William would
be. We've gotten used to a shocking level of general bravery. It might be fun. But ultimately I do think
that the "soul makes no difference" plotline would be the best, thematically, and I think that's the one I'm
rooting for. We'll see...maybe they'll come up with something better than both.
[> [> [> [> Re: Quick spoilery season 7 spec re: Spike
-- Rowan, 13:27:04 06/06/02 Thu
"I'm with you on that, mostly because he attacks her
in human face, not vamp face. Yes, his dual nature is in play, but it's not the demon versus the human,
just the good versus the bad, same as everyone. And the crime was so human, borne of desperation and
anguish and alcohol and frustration and anger. He didn't try to turn her, he tried to rape her. That's a
man's crime."
I think ME has no idea what a kettle of fish they jumped into with that choice in
SR. SDK says it was a man's crime. JE says it arose from the demon. Yet, the crime was the impetus for
Spike to seek ensouling. This season more than any other, it's been clear that Spike is a thing. He can't
be a man. And the ultimate solution for that is shown to be the soul.
Here's another point. If
Spike is not considered to be a man, but a monster who is selfishly motivated even in his best acts, then
how can we turn around and say that he's suddenly a man when performing his worst
act?
Rowan
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Quick spoilery season 7 spec re:
Spike -- dream of the consortium, 14:03:55 06/06/02 Thu
Oh, but I don't say
that. I don't think Spike is a monster who is selfishly motivated even in his best acts at all. I know there
are those who do, and for them the ensoulment narrative would have to take a different turn to be
satisfying.
I do agree the ME may not really be sure of what they were doing with that choice. I
don't have time to go into it now, but this is my basic personal take on the soul issue. The soul is a moral
compass, but it's not a surefire one (see Warren, who has a soul that clearly doesn't tend him toward
good). I also think it's not the only one - socialization can provide a compass as well. I believe that Spike
was learning a moral compass from his interaction with the Scoobies in season five. He moved from
doing bad things to doing good things for his own advantage (way back in season two, when he first made
that alliance with Buffy) to doing good things for the approval of a loved one (Buffy, of course, and this
change only comes after he is forced, due to highly unusual circumstances, to spend more time among
humans than among demons), to doing good things for an abstract ideal, albeit one still highly connected
to the approval of another ("I made a promise to a lady," looking after Dawn over the summer, etc.) The
big difference in the final step is that the reward has been taken away - he can't get Buffy's approval,
because she is dead, but he retains the ideal nonetheless. Importantly, he is still deeply involved in the
Scoobies. When Buffy reutrns, he remains on the side of good, and only begins to slip once his "moral
compass", the social group that has provided him with a new moral order, begin to reject him. I believe
that one of the most important themes of this season is that we create our realities and Buffy and Xander
particularly assisted in Spike's slipping from his newly-found manhood by confining him to the role of
monster. Of course, it's far more complex than that, but I believe in going to seek his soul, the soul isn't
the important part - Spike's rejection of his role as a monster is. I think he believes it will change him
more than it will. The importance of the rape scene may be that he commits evil and is horrified by it -
and realizes that both can co-exist, the action and the horror, something all the characters have had a hard
time with this season. How can someone do something and know its wrong and hate themselves for doing
it - and yet do it, anyway? Spike never hated himself before, the Scoobies (arguably) have never done such
evil before, but the experience of horrible guilt is new for both. I'm getting off-topic a bit here, and I'm
writing this off the top of my head with no time to edit, so I hope this isn't too incoherent.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Good explanation, dream. I
agree. -- Sophist, 14:28:52 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Quick spoilery season 7 spec re:
Spike -- Arethusa, 15:19:40 06/06/02 Thu
Devil's Advocate approaches the
bench to address the judge:
I don't think Spike rejected his role as a monster and ran out to get
a soul so he could be good. He never said: "I want to be a good man, so I'll go out and get a soul." He
said that he wants to be "what Buffy deserves." He knows what he did was wrong because Buffy was
angry and hurt by his violence towards her, not because he spontaneously developed a conscience.
(Although he often acts as if he did.) He thinks he needs a soul for Buffy to love him, because she always
flung his "evil, souless" nature in his face. Sure, he knows right from wrong and often does right, but
that's because he is as rotten vampire, not because he is a good man.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Quick spoilery season 7
spec re: Spike -- Rowan, 17:09:53 06/06/02 Thu
"Sure, he knows right from
wrong and often does right, but that's because he is as rotten vampire, not because he is a good
man."
My read is a little different. The crypt scene in SR demonstrated that for the first time,
Spike was able to feel real remorse. That was the last component he needed to experience true human
love. As a vampire, he's not wired for that. He's wired to be a monster. So he decided to make a change to
his state.
I think it's splitting hairs to say that he was motivated by love of Buffy and not by a
desire to be a good man. He wants to be a good man because he wants the same things that other good
people have, like love and companionship. He's not motivated by being a crappy vampire. If he had
wanted to, surely he could have asked the African!Demon to remove his chip as his boon. But he asked
for a soul instead.
Very few people are motivated by pure ideals. Love is a great
motivator.
Rowan
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Quick spoilery
season 7 spec re: Spike -- Arethusa, 17:56:52 06/06/02 Thu
>>I think it's
splitting hairs to say that he was motivated by love of Buffy and not by a desire to be a good
man.
Actually, this is the crux of a very important debate regarding redemption, aka "Is Buffy
A Mass Murderer?" If Spike is capable of self-redemption without a soul, so is, potentially, every other
vampire, and therefore Buffy should save, not slaughter, vampires. Although I don't think we want to see
"Major Buffy."
Wow, Spike overload. I think I'll give it a rest for a while.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Quick
spoilery season 7 spec re: Spike -- Rowan, 18:01:05 06/06/02 Thu
"Actually, this
is the crux of a very important debate regarding redemption, aka "Is Buffy A Mass Murderer?" If Spike is
capable of self-redemption without a soul, so is, potentially, every other vampire, and therefore Buffy
should save, not slaughter, vampires. Although I don't think we want to see "Major
Buffy.""
Yes, I'm aware of that debate. However, ME managed to have their cake and eat it,
too. They managed to allow Spike a moment of true human remorse so that he could formulate a plan for
redemption, they managed to reinforce that there was no way he could continue to live like that without
basically imploding, and then they gave him the shot at redemption with the soul.
Plus, I've
never bought the idea that if one extraordinary vampire manages to achieve redemption without a soul
that means Buffy is a mass murderer. She's not responsible for theorizing the future of every given
vampire. She's a soldier in a war. She kills the enemy. There's no indication that the unique set of
circumstances that produced Spike could be reproduced. Angel was cursed with a soul? Should Buffy try
to curse every vampire with a soul and save them all? Of course not. If Angel didn't pose the moral
dilemna, neither should Spike.
Rowan
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Quick spoilery season 7 spec re:
Spike -- Rowan, 17:06:42 06/06/02 Thu
"Oh, but I don't say that. I don't think
Spike is a monster who is selfishly motivated even in his best acts at all. I know there are those who do,
and for them the ensoulment narrative would have to take a different turn to be satisfying."
I'm
referring to the proliferation of interviews, most notably by MN, where she tells fans repeatedly that Spike
is selfishly motivated even in his best acts, by love of Buffy.
How she reconciles this with
Spike's behavior while Buffy was dead, I have no idea. But if the Executive Producer of the show tells me
what a character's intended motivations are, I guess I need to pay a bit of
attention.
Rowan
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Quick spoilery season 7
spec re: Spike -- dream of the consortium, 06:30:52 06/07/02 Fri
I don't think
you need to pay attention at all. Remember what Marti was doing in her appearance in OMWF - lying
through her teeth. I don't bother with most of the writer interview stuff, or I at least take it with a grain of
salt, particularly when the subject is a controversial one. Trust the text to stand alone.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Quick spoilery
season 7 spec re: Spike -- Rowan, 13:50:00 06/07/02 Fri
"I don't think you need
to pay attention at all."
Unfortunately, I can't divorce authorial intention from the meaning of a
text. It's just not in me. Also, alot of what MN said was really shown to be
true.
Rowan
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Quick
spoilery season 7 spec re: Spike -- dream of the consortium, 06:41:24 06/10/02 Mon
I'm not divorcing authorial intent from meaning. I believe firmly in author control, and the
better the work, the more deliberate I believe the author's choices to be. I'm just saying that in this medium
- a serial in which a story is unfolding week to week, which is written by a team of writers, rather than an
individual - there is motivation for the writing team to disclose less rather than more, and to actually lie
when it suits them. I don't blame them for this - if they answered every questions with absolute accuracy,
there would be no suspense, no discussion, and so on. (Hence MN lying in OMWF.) If the series were
over and the authors were to put out a statement then, I would certainly have to pay attention to it. But not
now. You say that a lot of what they say is true. That implies that not everything is. Why bother trying to
sort through the half-truths?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Quick spoilery season 7 spec re:
Spike (Spoilers for SR and beyond) -- shadowkat, 20:26:35 06/08/02 Sat
"I
believe in going to seek his soul, the soul isn't the important part - Spike's rejection of his role as a
monster is. I think he believes it will change him more than it will. The importance of the rape scene may
be that he commits evil and is horrified by it - and realizes that both can co-exist, the action and the
horror, something all the characters have had a hard time with this season. How can someone do
something and know its wrong and hate themselves for doing it - and yet do it, anyway? Spike never hated
himself before, the Scoobies (arguably) have never done such evil before, but the experience of horrible
guilt is new for both."
Oh I agree. Very good explanation. I think Spike's reaction to the AR
scene is fascinating for the same reasons you point out above. You're right he didn't hate himself before,
he had no problem with the demon eggs, or almost biting that girl...the only time, the ONLY time he's felt
guilt was 1. by failing to protect Dawn on that tower and 2. Having sex with ANya (now he doesn't feel
guilty for the sex) he feels guilty for hurting Buffy which he didn't intend. He even goes to apologize - that
was the intent not the attempted rape. But he doesn't hate himself for these things - he's haunted by his
failure to save Dawn..but this is mixed with grief. And his confession of his touches Buffy. Just as his
undergoing of torture and allowing Glory to possibly kill him before revealing the key touched Buffy. But
the rape - scares them both. And it nearly destroys him. I don't know why this surprised me or anyone
else. It shouldn't have. Rewatching the past episodes - it's there just as his desire for a soul is
there.
How many times has Spike told Buffy he wouldn't hurt her? That it would kill him if she
were hurt? In Intervention he says - "I couldn't live her being in that much pain." He used to enjoy
torturing her in season 4. No he can't bear it. She feels pain - so does he. When she tells him seeing him
with someone else in Hell's Bells hurts her - his first instinct is to apologize, then he tells her they'll leave
and promises not to sleep with the girl. When she's hurt in Normal Again - he helps her, even when she
rejects him. And in Entropy - he states - "I don't hurt you." So the fact that he eventually does in the
worst possible way from his pov - shocks him to his core. He thought he had control over himself. He
thought he could trust himself never to hurt her. Apparently not.
Now the soul. How many
times do people tell him he's an evil soulless thing? How many times does she literally beat this
information into him? (Smashed? Wrecked? Dead Things?) In TR - he even states - "maybe I'm a noble
vampire, a vampire with a soul". Deep down inside - he is beginning to believe that's what is necessary.
The information doesn't bubble to the surface until SR.
I think it's obvious if you look back that
he always intended to get a soul. He states the desire, but thinks that because she came back wrong -
maybe she prefers the monster. After all it's what he tells Riley in AYW - "the girl needs a monster in her
man" - only one problem, he's not a man. He's a monster with a little man inside. He doesn't realize this
really until SR. (In Intervention he tells Xander - he's not a monster - Xander corrects him.) This year
both Buffy and Spike have forgotten who he is..in SR they get hit with it. The soul - when I heard the
spoilers about him going to Africa - it made no sense at least not about the chip - why now? But about the
soul? Complete and utter sense. He didn't want it before now, he wasn't ready. And he may have always
known about the demon. After all he knew about Doc and has ties in the demon
underworld.
It's his decision to get it that is vital. It's what makes his ensoulement completely
different from Angel's and Darla's who had theirs inflicted on them much as Spike had the chip or Anya
her humanity - against their will. Making the choice to change, to become more human, to take on all the
pain that entails as well as the responsibility - makes all the difference.
Here's where you
second point about Warren is interesting.
"The soul is a moral compass, but it's not a surefire one
(see Warren, who has a soul that clearly doesn't tend him toward good). I also think it's not the only one -
socialization can provide a compass as well. I believe that Spike was learning a moral compass from his
interaction with the Scoobies in season five."
I don't believe Warren ever paid attention to
what his soul told him any more than Ford did. Both were little boys who wanted to be evil. When I
rewatched Lie to Me and Ford asks Spike to play the "evil villain role" from the comics and movies - he
reminds me of Warren in Season 6, Villains, bragging in the demon bar and at Racks. Warren and Ford
are very different from Spike. They've been given no reason to be good and appear to have no compass.
They choose evil because of power and it's easy and not painful and both fail miserably. Spike didn't so
much choose to be evil as he was made to be evil - he was created to be evil. A Dark Warrior. Created and
trained by Dark Warrior parents. Now with the chip he's been pushing against that
calling.
Warren by comparison was given a choice. He was created to be good, but has the
choice to choose it. Spike really wasn't given that choice. The compass gives it to you. The chip sort of
allowed Spike to do more good...and yes, he has fought to do good, for the wrong reasons, prior to the
chip, making him incredibly unpredictable. Warren OTOH was given a choice, no leash, no dictates, and
he chooses to be evil. Maybe if he had dictates he would have been better at it? Makes me wonder what
Spike could become with a choice? The fact that he already has made one that is against his nature and
dictates - makes me think he won't go down Warren or Ford's paths. But the difference between
Warren,Ford and Spike is Spike can love, Spike has fallen in love...and Warren and Ford never loved
anyone other than themselves.
[> [> [> [> Re: Quick spoilery season 7 spec re: Spike
-- abt, 07:52:04 06/07/02 Fri
At first I thought the same as you, that the AR was a
human thing to do, so would a soul be relevant?
Another way to look at it, is this. Spike did
not try to force Buffy with the intent of hurting her "showing her who's boss", but with the intent of
getting her to reciprocate his feelings. It was not an AR motivated by evil intent, evil though the act may
be. Perhaps this is a case of 'love makes you do the wacky'. Although love is generally a good emotion, it's
a very powerful, intense one, and without a soul/conscience to act as a counterbalance, it can spiral into
something twisted and bad.
Perhaps that is why he wanted the soul, because without it to act as a
counterbalance to his love, he hurt the one he loves.
I liked William too BTW.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Quick spoilery season 7 spec re:
Spike -- wina, 14:03:49 06/07/02 Fri
I think I completely missed Spikes
intention to get a soul, I just thought that as usual his emotional response led him to something
unexpected, even if at some level, desired.
[> [> Basically agree. Small additions ... (Spoilers) -- Exegy,
12:52:01 06/06/02 Thu
I think that Spike can be good; he's had the potential all
along. But he's stuck with a limited worldview (lack of moral compass, as you put it), one that eventually
leads him to betray every ideal he's ever believed in (the scene in SR). He can't remain the way he is; he's
nothing now. So he dedicates himself to a personal reinvention (discarding the all-consuming passon in
favor of trustworthiness). His willingness to break out of his rut is the change itself. The addition of the
soul merely signifies the internal change that has already taken place. So in that respect I agree with Rob.
I think the physical "extension" illustrates the inner journey Spike has embarked upon. He wants to
develop, to grow. He's broken out of the arrested development which soulless vampirism signifies.
I don't think that the *soul* is suddenly going to alter Spike. *He's* the only one who can
change himself. The soul just indicates his intentions of changing. We'll see how well Spike can actualize
his inner potential now that he's dedicated himself to transformation.
Did you think those trials
were disappointing? Well, they've only just begun.
PS. I like some of the points you make,
Arethusa. Especially the one about the soul being the validation *Buffy* needs in order to accept Spike. I
remember how easily she accepted Angel with his soul (even after his stint as Angelus). It'll be interesting
to see how Buffy responds to Spike (once she knows he has a soul, of course). Maybe she won't be able to
accept him because then she'd have to deal with the Angel/Angelus situation. But this is all assuming the
writers don't have some other tricks up their sleeves (as I'm sure they do).
Heh. Evil
writers!
[> [> Re: Quick spoilery season 7 spec re: Spike -- Rowan,
13:21:22 06/06/02 Thu
"If that were true, I don't think ME would have done the AR
scene, which I assumed was to emphesize that Spike can't be a good person without a soul. Sure, he can
do good, but his motive can't or won't be pure unless he is souled."
I think you've hit the nail
right on the head. ME's point all season has been that while Spike can do good things, he's not a good
person. This has been emphasized in interviews by MN, DF, and others.
There is also clearly
a difference in how the consequences of the bad actions of the 'good' characters (Xander, Buffy, and
Willow) are handled when compared to the bad actions of the 'bad' character
(Spike).
Rowan
[> [> [> Re: Quick spoilery season 7 spec re: Spike --
shygirl, 15:53:48 06/06/02 Thu
Okay, so how do we define a "good person" ? Do we
still view "good people" as "good" even when they do evil? If we define Spike as evil even though he does
good that seems to follow. Yet to me that seems awfully weak. I have a hard time believing that the
definition of good or evil is so simple.
The position that "good works alone cannot lead to
salvation" is a position I remember studying from a class on world religions and I don't remember which
religion took that position, but I believe the second half of the position stated that one must be "born
again" to be saved.
So, does this mean that Spike has gone to be "born again" and does Willow need
to be "saved?"
[> [> [> [> Re: Quick spoilery season 7 spec re: Spike
-- Rowan, 17:13:08 06/06/02 Thu
"Okay, so how do we define a "good person" ? Do
we still view "good people" as "good" even when they do evil? If we define Spike as evil even though he
does good that seems to follow. Yet to me that seems awfully weak. I have a hard time believing that the
definition of good or evil is so simple."
I have no clue, unfortunately. :) Before S6, I thought
ME's point was that 'by your fruits ye are known' so that action mattered, not some intrinsic goodness or
badness. I've been forced to reassess that this season, particularly after MN said Buffy would learn the
difference between being in a relationship with a good person and someone good to be with. Clearly that
draws a line in the sand, with Spike on the side of 'good to be with' (i.e. capable of good acts) and the
Scoobies on the side of good.
Even JE described Willow's acts as coming from deep, loving
grief, and the writers gave her an out on her accountability with the addiction angle.
I think at
this point, the ethical underpinnings of the Buffyverse are very suspect, indeed.
Rowan
[> [> [> [> [> thank you and here is another take on
selfish love -- shygirl, 17:22:24 06/06/02 Thu
And for those who believe that
somehow Spike's good deeds are somehow suspect because they stem from his "selfish love" for Buffy here
is an interesting point of view on the subject.
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/love.html
[> [> [> [> [> The Writers dilemma of a soulless Spike
and his continued ability to do good. -- Rufus, 16:53:58 06/07/02 Fri
From the
beginning the writers had their canon that established that without a soul, vampires were evil, period.
Then Angel left for his own show and Spike became the love interest (one sided). How they got Spike to
the point that he could do good was to have a chip put in his head that zapped him if he attempted to harm
a human. But how far could they go with the chip when they had always said that the vampires nature was
to do evil?
Spike didn't actively try to do good until he discovered in his dream that he loved
Buffy. He then went through a slow growing up process that was painful for his nose and for some
watching. Spike was approached by Buffy under the tree in front of her home and the only thing he could
do was posture like an adolecent and say something inane about her hair and call her a bitch. Spike
progressed through season five in a learning experience that was leading him in a direction that had him
doing things to make Buffy happy. But how far can the writers go when they can't agree with each other
about Spike? They have a canon that would be threatened on the other show Angel, if Spike could reason
his way to redemption without a soul. So, the writers came to a compromise that I can live with. They
gave him his soul back. But they didn't just slap one in there, they proved one point.....though Spike is
capable of doing good for Buffy, he is constantly in a conflict with his nature that could have tragic
consequences for an anonymous party. In Smashed, Spike attempted to attack a helpless woman in an
alley, stopped only by the chip, then that event was never disclosed to the Scoobies. It became clear that in
Seeing Red that the "attempted rape" was the turning point for Spike. His road to redemption had hit a big
roadblock and that was his nature, the nature that prefers chaos, the nature he has been going against
since OOMM in season five.
Spike then went and submitted to a trial that ended with the
return of his soul. He wanted Buffy to get what she deserved. And what Buffy deserved was someone that
she didn't have to keep a leash and collar on to ensure his safety to others. Spike with the help of the chip,
was able to allow enough of his humanity to surface to make the choice to search of his soul, knowing that
without it he could at any time find himself doing something monsterous enough to warrant staking him
good and proper. Without the help of the chip and his love for Buffy that would never have happened so
we know unless there are more chips out there than in a bag of Chips Ahoy, it ain't gonna happen to any
other vampires.
All the beatings that Spike suffered made many think that he would retaliate
against his treatment and that the SG would deserve anything they got. What is forgotten is that all the
beatings, hurt feelings, Spike suffered are nothing compared to the suffering Spike has inflicted on
countless innocents over the years he has been a vampire. I may not like everything the SG did, but I
understand their fears about a demon who killed his way through Europe and the US before finding his
way to Sunnydale. Spike is no innocent victim, he is a demon who has through his interactions with Buffy
and the SG, changed his way of thinking enough to reach out for a soul. He is no more or less deserving of
a soul than Angel was. When Buffy said that a vampire with a soul was lame in Tabula Rasa, I thought of
all the posters that called the idea a plot device, lame, etc. But all stories have plot devices, plot holes,
similar themes. Both ATS and BTVS tend to tell a story around the theme of growing up, falls and returns
to grace, why should only one vampire be allowed a soul, I don't remember there being a limit on exactly
how many people can be redeemed.
The writers were in the situation that the Blonde one was
coming across as more sympathetic than the hero. Blame it on the actor, blame it on the fans, but for
many Spike can do no wrong. They didn't want to be saying something about humans that conflicted with
canon and Spikes ability to do what some people find hard to, even with a soul. I think they were right in
how they resolved this problem of Spike and his soulless state that threatened the vampire with a soul on
the other show ATS. Both shows have people who have become the lowest of lows in their actions, only
through some intervention have the chance to transform from monsterous to someone worth fighting
along with. I like both Angel and Spike and feel all, demon and human, are open to redemption if they
want it, and some may find themselves in a position of redemption even when they never intended to get
to that point in the first place. It's not about the end result but the journey getting there. Who would have
ever thought something Maggie Walsh had a hand in would have the result that has happened with Spike,
proving that there is no exact formula for redemption or I would have the recipe published and the world
would be perfect.....;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Wow, thank you for a very indepth
answer to my question..now about Willow. -- shygirl, 17:00:24 06/07/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Writers dilemma of a
soulless Spike and his continued ability to do good. -- Akita, 09:26:33 06/08/02 Sat
"All the beatings that Spike suffered made many think that he would retaliate against his
treatment and that the SG would deserve anything they got. What is forgotten is that all the beatings, hurt
feelings, Spike suffered are nothing compared to the suffering Spike has inflicted on countless innocents
over the years he has been a vampire. I may not like everything the SG did, but I understand their fears
about a demon who killed his way through Europe and the US before finding his way to
Sunnydale."
The problem is, Rufus, that many of those beatings had little or nothing to do with
Spike's life as, what, one-quarter of the Scourge of Europe and nearly everything to do with his personal
history with Buffy and Xander or his role as an ambulatory punching bag.
What we got was
convenient blindness about Spike's past when he was useful to them; and sudden memory recall when
their responsibility to him became inconvenient to them.
"The writers were in the
situation that the Blonde one was coming across as more sympathetic than the hero. Blame it on the actor,
blame it on the fans, but for many Spike can do no wrong."
How about blaming it on the
storytelling? Lord knows, Angel's past conduct periodically rises up to bite him and to remind the
audience what he once was. Why not have Spike's?
Or if you are trying to show how evil he
can still be even without his bite, make it an act that is plausible for Spike to carry out or be interested in,
rather than the evil international arms dealer nonsense of AYW. Or do not show him having to talk
himself into killing the woman in the alley -- just show him going for the kill.
Akita
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Writers dilemma of a
soulless Spike and his continued ability to do good. -- Tymen, 10:37:13 06/08/02 Sat
Or
if you are trying to show how evil he can still be even without his bite, make it an act that is plausible for
Spike to carry out or be interested in, rather than the evil international arms dealer nonsense of AYW. Or
do not show him having to talk himself into killing the woman in the alley -- just show him going for the
kill.
--------
Just to point out a couple of things. Why wouldn't Spike be interested in being an
arms dealer. He needs money to buy blood. He obviously needs some kind of cash flow to get the things he
likes. Selling arms would be an easy way to go.
And as for talking himself into the killing in
the alley.
He still had well over a year of conditioning to get over, even if it didn't hurt him when he
hit Buffy. He still couldn't be sure it wasn't a one time thing.
Tymen
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Writers dilemma of a
soulless Spike and his continued ability to do good. -- Rufus, 17:41:00 06/08/02 Sat
What we got was convenient blindness about Spike's past when he was useful to them; and
sudden memory recall when their responsibility to him became inconvenient to them.
I'll
go to Dead Things for a glimpse of Buffy's state of mind..
INT. SPIKE'S CRYPT -
DOWNSTAIRS - NIGHT (DAY 1)
TRACKING through Spike's underground chamber.
Sounds of furniture crashing and breaking OFF SCREEN, along with GRUNTS OF PAIN. TRACK past
the bed, which obviously hasn't been slept in. The OFF SCREEN battle climaxes.
TRACK into
the furthest chamber from the bed, which has been totally destroyed. Buffy and Spike lay in the middle of
the wreckage, naked under the rug, totally spent. They stare at each other, both amazed by the bomb that
just went off.
BUFFY: (winded) We missed the bed again.
SPIKE: (eyeing the
damage) Lucky for the bed.
BUFFY: Is this a new rug?
SPIKE: No.
It just looks different when you're under it.
BUFFY: This place is okay for a hole in the
ground. You fixed it up.
SPIKE: I ate a decorator once. Maybe something
stuck.
Buffy smiles despite herself. Then-
BUFFY: I've been thinking
about doing something to my room.
SPIKE: Yeah?
BUFFY: Yeah. I
think the New Kids on the Block posters are starting to date me.
SPIKE: Well if you want,
I can- (stops) Are we having a conversation?
BUFFY: What? No. Sort
of.
SPIKE: Hm.
BUFFY: What?
SPIKE: Well isn't this
usually the part where you kick me in the head and run out, virtue
fluttering?
BUFFY: That's the plan. Soon as my legs start working again.
He
drinks her in, his eyes moving hungrily over her.
SPIKE: You were
amazing.
BUFFY: You, uh, got the job done too.
SPIKE: I was just trying
to keep up. The things you do... the way you make it hurt in all the wrong places. I've never been with
such an animal.
Buffy's face clouds.
BUFFY: I'm not an
animal.
SPIKE: Want to see the bite marks?
BUFFY: It's late. I
should try to catch Dawn before she goes to bed.
SPIKE: (sighs) And she's
off.
She roots around under the rug, ignoring him.
BUFFY: Where's my
underwear?
SPIKE: What is this to you? This thing we have.
BUFFY:
We don't have a thing. We just have... this. That's all.
SPIKE: Do you even like
me?
She's stopped by the actual sincerity of
that.
BUFFY: Sometimes.
SPIKE: But you like what I do to
you.
He's got her there. She doesn't answer. Spike grins slightly. Produces a pair of handcuffs,
dangles them from a finger.
SPIKE: (cont'd) Do you trust me?
BUFFY:
(softly) Never.
Was Buffy using Spike, yes, does she have feelings for him, yes.
Would it work out given Buffy's job description, no. The chip has everything to do with that. You mention
the fact that Spike had to talk himself out of attacking that woman......sure he did...but not for very long.
The chip may have allowed some of the man who once was, William, surface, but his nature is to kill, and
to enjoy killing, go forget that would be insane. So, who does Buffy care for, the demon or the glimmer of
the man who once was.......To Afterlife we go........
Spike leads Buffy to the sofa. They sit.
Spike reaches for her hands, and we see that his own are shaking. He takes her hands, but he doesn't look
at them. Just holds them and looks at her face.
BUFFY: How long was I
gone?
Spike has to clear his throat, find his voice.
SPIKE: Hundred forty-
seven days yesterday... um, one-forty-eight today. 'Cept today doesn't count, does it?
Buffy
nods.
SPIKE: How long was it for you...where you were?
BUFFY: (thinks,
then:) Longer.
There is no question in my mind that Spike loves Buffy, but the
resurrected Buffy has been through something, the gang assumed something horrible, something that
makes her find herself visiting a demon and even she doesn't seem to know why...again from
Afterlife.....
She turns around, sees him standing there, notices the knife in his hand, but
doesn't react to it.
SPIKE: (cont'd) (gentle) You should be careful. Never know what kind
of villain's got a knife at your back.
BUFFY: Your hand is
hurt.
SPIKE: Same to you.
BUFFY: Right.
Spike puts down
the knife.
SPIKE: Willow's getting pretty strong, isn't she? Bringing you back. Hard to get
a good night's death 'round here.
Nothing from Buffy -- Spike can't figure out how to fill the
pause.
SPIKE: (cont'd) You can sit, if you want. Got furniture. You should see the
downstairs, too. Quite posh.
Buffy sits. Spike sits opposite her. She keeps staring at him.
He takes it as an accusation, responds to it ...
SPIKE: (cont'd) I do remember what I
said. The promise. To protect her. If I'd done that ... even if I didn't make it, you wouldn't've had to
jump. (beat) I want you to know I did save you. Not when it counted, of course. But after that. Every night
after that. I'd see it all again, do something different. Faster or more clever, you know? Dozens of times,
lots of different ways ...(beat) Every night I save you.
He looks at her again. Her stare is
the same, vacant. He realizes she's not there to accuse him.
They sit quietly. Not
talking.
From the Jane Espenson interview with the Succubus Club's Kitty and
Candy...
J: But yeah -- I think that's what it was, and then when he says "I've saved you
lots of times", I think all we can do is know what we would be thinking and the kind of person Buffy
is that she has to be thinking Wow, what a guy!
> Q: Well, I hate the fact
that it cuts off right after that line; I would love to know what happened after that.
J: Yeah.
Well, Buffy doesn't give a lot. Buffy takes it all in and she has her deep feelings, but she doesn't open up
to people. She doesn't tell them what she's thinking, she doesn't like to show what she's thinking; maybe
she's afraid of demanding something from them that she's afraid they won't give, but she tends to be very
closed-off as a character, which is a wonderful and interesting fault to play with.
Buffy had
to look at Spike a new way following Afterlife, she began to see potential where she thought there was
none, but remember that potential isn't the demon part of the vampire but the man who once was, the
vampire may not be dangerous to Buffy, but how long would it be that he could be trusted as a Wolf
guarding a human flock, a flock that past Buffy and mayber her sister and friends, he has no feelings for?
Then there is a problem that Buffy has always had and that is her fear of loving, that fear that always
makes her pull away from it, and with Spike there is that much more reason not to fully trust her
feelings....
J: It all made a lot of sense. I think that part of what makes that make sense is
that Buffy is so much in her own head. Is that we know Buffy is always a little bit of an observer. She's
always watching the world a little bit. So I think that after Spike said the thing about I save you every
night, I think Buffy kept her own counsel. I think she walked out and didn't show him what it meant to
her to hear him say that. Which is exactly why the relationship with Spike didn't work out. It didn't
really not work out because he doesn't have a soul; the fact that she can't love him has to do with *her*
so much more than it has to do with him -- she finds it so hard to love.
Buffy finds it
hard to love because of who she is, she has the job of being the hero, and people expect more from
heroes....and that in itself has to be on her mind all the time....how to live up to expectations of everyone
else because they look to her for guidance. Loving Spike, allowing herself to love another vampire is too
much to consider, specially one that didn't have a soul, at least with Angel she could point to that
difference....with Spike the only difference was the leash in his head. Buffy does care how the others think
of her, leaving her isolated and hesitant to open up to others.
In Dead Things, Buffy opened
up to Tara expecting the look, expecting accusations, expecting to be rejected.....
TARA:
(concerned) Buffy, I-I promise, there's nothing wrong with you.
BUFFY: There has to be! This
just can't be me, it isn't me. (starting to cry) Why do I feel like this? Why do I let Spike do those things to
me?
TARA: You mean hit you.
Buffy meets Tara's eyes, but only for a moment,
then looks away. Tara frowns as she begins to get it.
TARA: Oh.
Longer shot of
the two of them. Tara rubs her knees nervously.
TARA: Oh, huh.
Really.
BUFFY: He's everything I hate. He's everything that ... I'm supposed to be
against. But the only time that I ever feel anything is when ... Don't tell anyone,
please.
TARA: I won't.
BUFFY: (crying) The way they would look at me
... I just couldn't...
TARA: I won't tell anyone. I wouldn't do that.
BUFFY:
(whispers) Why can't I stop? Why do I keep letting him in?
TARA: (concerned) Do you love
him?
Buffy just stares at her tearfully.
TARA: I-It's okay if you do. He's done a lot
of good, and, and he does love you. A-and Buffy, it's okay if you don't. You're going through a really hard
time, and you're...
BUFFY: (still tearful) What? Using him? What's okay about
that?
TARA: It's not that simple.
BUFFY: It is! It's wrong. I'm wrong. Tell me that
I'm wrong, please...
Buffy starts to cry for real now.
Buffy didn't come back
wrong, but because of the way she felt about being back she became open to doing things she never would
have considered before, like sleeping with Spike. I don't think Buffy is the type that sleeps with someone
she doesn't care for, so that opened an even more troubling question to her.....why Spike?
Jane
Espenson again...
Q: That's great. Um, back to the rape scene, actually, somebody did
want to ask a specific question about it, could you shed some ... could you shed some light on exactly
how the Buffy/Spike attempted rape scene in Seeing Red was supposed to be interpreted. I'm getting
confused. Is this a case of no-means-yes? That it was okay because Buffy had said no and didn't mean it
before? Because that is how it came off to me. Why does she shrug it off so seemingly quickly, to the
point where she was willing to trust Spike with protecting Dawn in the very next episode and even
missing him?
J: Yeah. The missing him is problematic. It was not supposed to be -- in no
way -- and I felt it was very clear that that in no way was what Spike doing condoned in any way. She
was, you know, clearly shaken, very upset, clearly saying no, and she was clearly appalled by what he had
done. He clearly didn't think it had been condoned or he would not have had his own reaction to
it.
Q: Absolutely.
J: She protects him with Dawn because she has no reason
not to protect him with Dawn. He did not; he was...Buffy knows him. Buffy's spent a lot of time with him.
She knows he's evil. She knows -- he surprised her with the rape; she did not know he was capable of
that. But she has no reason to think he would attack Dawn, and it was a dire situation with very few
choices about what to do with Dawn.
Q: Okay. Right.
J: And the missing
him?
Q: That's tough.
J: It's very tough. It's very tough. I think what we could
say is that she's missing the man he could have been. She's missing --
Q: The
potential?
J: The potential, and, when someone betr -- reveals themselves to be not what
you thought they were, you miss who you thought they were.
Q: Right.
J:
And I think she was missing the Spike that she thought she knew.
Q: And at the same time,
it says a lot about yourself, your judgment of somebody. If you're expecting one thing from somebody and
they disappoint you, in any way --
J: It's true.
The vampire is a hybrid of
human and demon, with no soul, human morals mean nothing to the vampire, who is only interested in
feeding and creating chaos. Buffy and the gang have been fighting this enemy for six seasons. Angel was
an exception that became the standard to judge vampires by, the soul, the thing between human and
demon. It is too easy to blame the actions of these young people in relation to Spike instead of seeing that
their rejection shaped the decision he made in Seeing Red. I think the chip allowed more of the man who
once was to come to the surface of the demon who only wanted Buffy as a dead Slayer trophy at the
beginning. Buffy and the gang have good reason not to trust Spike, he has tried to kill them for the first
four and a bit seasons. Spike wanted to lose the chip and return the monster he felt he needed to be worth
recognition.
But love is a funny thing....it got Spike to act more like William. Buffy didn't fall
for the monster, but the potential in the monster, the human potential. The attempted rape came as a
shock to the both of them, and both reacted. It was the point where Spike saw for the first time the demon
Buffy feared she may have to kill. I have no problem with how the gang has been reluctant to accept
Spike, he is dangerous, he could revert to what he was if the chip is removed. Spike took care of that, he
chose his human potential over the monster in the man. The monster may have be glamorous, even sexy
to some, but it was a tragedy waiting to happen. The chip allowed Spike to appreciate humanity again,
enough that he chose to become as human as he possibly could. His transformation was painful, he had to
go through rejection, and this time not run into the arms of darkness but as close to the light as he
dared.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> WOW! what an
awesome analysis! -- shygirl, 18:27:14 06/08/02 Sat
Maybe he will come back as
a human.... or something almost human... not quite a vampire but not yet a human... has to win his
humanity back.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Writers
dilemma of a soulless Spike and his continued ability to do good. -- shadowkat, 19:50:51
06/08/02 Sat
I agree. We see hints of Buffy realizing the demon's still there
throughout the season. The writers and actors are walking a tightrope here which you point out very well.
Marti Noxon in interviews stated something to the effect, that when it comes to herself and her friends,
Buffy trusts his love for her, but to the world or the scheme outside herself? She can't. Spike only sees
something as being bad if it directly hurts Buffy or anyone she cares about. If she doesn't know about it or
it doesn't directly affect her - then no problem.
They've given us several examples: Smashed -
he does try to bite that girl and would have if the chip hadn't kept him back. He also goes to the trio -
breaks in on them and threatens them into checking out his chip. When he discovers it's not him but her -
he thinks oh...she's dark too, I can have her. That's the demon. But you also see the human in the episode.
Both are there...but without the soul, the demon is in control to the extent the chip doesn't hold him back.
Later - we see it in his kitty poker. Then again with the demon eggs. She has no clue what he's doing
when she isn't with him. Riley points that out. Spike even admits it - more or less in AYW. "Play games?
You're one to talk...you know what I am but you keep coming to me all the same." (Not exact but close.)
He's trying to be good
for her, but he doesn't know what good means outside of her. She realizes this
in Dead Things - the reason he doesn't understand her guilt about KAtrina is that Katrina isn't a friend of
hers, she doesn't even know her, a non-entity, why does her death matter? Why destroy yourself over
something you don't know? From Spike's pov Katrina's body is just a dead thing that needs to be disposed
of. This horrifies Buffy. Buffy is having the same problem the audience is - we see the man, William, in
Afterlife and in Entropy and in Tabula Rasa...but then there's Spike, sexy as hell, but also bad. Takes.
Wants. Have. And in SR, it's clear Spike is in control. As James Marsters put it in an interview - "He's an
evil character in love with a good character - this can motivate him to do heroic things to get her approval
and get into her pants and evil things if she spurns him." Joss says somewhat the same thing - "You want
to make the person you love happy...so you do what you think will make that happen."
I think
what is interesting in this relationship - is two characters had to come to grips with what they were at
heart in order to change and grow.
Spike getting a soul is very intriguing - because he chose it.
The fact that a demon - a demon who used to make fun of an ensouled vampire - actually went after a
soul, is astonishing. And yes I think he intended to get one - the writers were trying to build suspense by
giving us vague dialogue. I also think that the AR scene, a more human crime than demon one - caused
him to do this - is equally interesting. I'm excited to see where they take it. And it's not the Wizard of OZ
story...I think it's something far more interesting.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> With quotes from
Seeing Red on to Grave -- Rufus, 01:33:08 06/09/02 Sun
I think the best way to
discuss the final transformation that Spike goes through is to start with his talk with Dawn in Seeing
Red.....the shooting script for Seeing Red........
Spike slips into his chair by the TV, sipping
his drink.
DAWN
I just wanted to stop by on my way and, you know...(a beat)
Everybody's pretty mad at you.
SPIKE
Yeah. Kinda picked up on
that.
DAWN (soft, disappointed)
You're not going to be coming around anymore. Are
you?
Spike tries to formulate an answer.
SPIKE
It's... complicated,
nibblet.
DAWN
Everybody keeps saying that.
SPIKE
Must be true then.
He drinks, dulling the pain.
DAWN
Was it worth it? What you did with
Anya?
SPIKE (ouch)
Buffy told you?
DAWN
Kinda caught the show.
There was a camera somewhere in the magic shop. Warren and Jonathan and that other guy have been
watching Buffy.
SPIKE
Wankers.
DAWN (trying to understand)
Do you
love her?
SPIKE (a beat)
No. It was just... a bad day. For both of us. We had a few drinks
and things just --
DAWN
Not Anya. Buffy. Do you really love her?
Spike
doesn't reply, but the answer is obvious.
DAWN (cont'd)
Then how could you do that to
her?
SPIKE (bristling)
Oh, right. Big Sis was treating me so well up until then. Huh.
Must still be a bit of the evil left in me after all.
DAWN (gently)
I don't know what
happened between you two. But what you did last night...(a beat) If you wanted to really hurt Buffy --
congratulations. It worked.
Spike chews on that, deep regret creeping into his eyes.
Dawn quietly slips out, closing the door behind her. Spike sits motionless in his chair, draped in shadows,
small and alone.
Spike knows that he did something wrong sleeping with Anya, it
didn't provide solace as much as it complicated the situation further. I understand how they would sleep
together in a drunken state, but it just made things so much worse for everyone concerned. Dawn speaks
to Spike making him realize that he isn't the only one hurting, that Buffy also hurts, and that gives him
hope of some sort of reconcilliation. That leads him to go to Buffys place.
INT. BUFFY'S
HOUSE - UPSTAIRS BATHROOM - NIGHT
Buffy enters in a bathrobe. She goes to the tub,
grimacing at the pain in her back as she leans down to start the water.
SPIKE (O.S.)
(concerned)
You hurt?
Buffy gasps. Spike is now standing in the doorway (sans leather
coat).
BUFFY
Get out.
SPIKE
We need to
talk.
BUFFY
I really don't.
SPIKE
This isn't just about you -- as much
you'd like it to be.
BUFFY
You spoke. I listened. You leave.
SPIKE (soft,
sincere)
I'm sorry.
The sincerity in his voice affects Buffy despite her anger and
hurt.
SPIKE (cont'd)
Not that it matters now. But I needed you to know
that.
BUFFY
Why?
SPIKE
Because I care about
you.
BUFFY
Then you might want to try the not sleeping with my
friends.
SPIKE
That's not... I didn't go to Anya for that. I was looking for a
spell.
BUFFY (anger rising)
You were going to use a spell on
me?
SPIKE
It wasn't for you. I wanted something -- anything to make this feeling stop. I
just wanted it to stop. (a beat, soft) You should have let him kill me.
BUFFY
I
couldn't.
SPIKE
Why?
BUFFY
You know
why.
SPIKE
Because you love me.
A beat. This has gone way beyond pain
and retribution. It's down to the truth now, once and for all.
BUFFY (softly, honestly)
No.
I don't.
SPIKE
Why do you keep lying to yourself?
BUFFY
I'm not
saying I don't have feelings for you. I do. But it's not love. I could never trust you enough for it to become
that.
SPIKE
Trust is for old marrieds, Buffy. Great love is wild and passionate and
dangerous. It burns and consumes.
BUFFY
Until there's nothing left. That kind of love
doesn't last.
He's moving towards her, desperate, tortured.
SPIKE
I know you
feel like I do. You don't have to hide it anymore. He moves to kiss her. She gently tries to stop
him.
BUFFY
Spike --
SPIKE
Let yourself feel it...He's becoming more
forceful.
BUFFY
Stop it...
It's quickly escalated into a very real, very ugly
struggle.
SPIKE
You love me...
BUFFY
Don't -- She stumbles back. She
grabs onto the shower curtain, falling. The shower curtain rings pop off like gunfire as she goes down,
WHACK! She gasps in pain as her back cracks against the edge of the tub, then her head as she stumbles
more, dazing her. Spike is on her, pinning her against the back of the tub, oblivious to her pain. His kisses
are desperate, forceful.
SPIKE (kissing her)
Let it go... Let yourself love
me...
BUFFY (over)
Stop it... please... stop...He doesn't listen.
INT. BUFFY'S
HOUSE - UPSTAIRS BATHROOM - NIGHT
Buffy struggles with Spike, pain shooting
through her injured back. He's on top of her, desperate, hungry.
SPIKE (kissing,
touching)
I know you felt it... When I was inside
you...
BUFFY
Don't...
She manages to push him off. She scuttles for the
door like a wounded animal. He catches her leg, scrambling back on top of her and pinning her wrists
down.
SPIKE
You're going to let me inside
you...
BUFFY
Please...
SPIKE
You'll feel it again,
Buffy...
BUFFY
Spike, stop...
He tears at her robe, getting it
open.
SPIKE
I'll make you feel it...
BUFFY
STOP!
She
shoves him back, exploding. He flies across the room, smashing midway up the opposite wall, cracking
the plaster and crashing to the floor. Buffy stands, trembling with rage, fear -- and reclaimed
power.
BUFFY (cont'd)
Ask me again why I could never love
you.
Spike looks up at her, realizing how far he just crossed the
line.
SPIKE
Oh god. Buffy... I didn't --
BUFFY
Because I stopped you.
Something I should have done a long time ago.
Spike can muster no response, the weight of
his actions crushing down on him. Buffy stands motionless, her eyes slick with anger -- and a tinge of fear
from almost being violated.
Notice that the scene starts with Spike being sincere (even
though he had no business going uninvited to her bathroom), this leads Buffy to talk to him but also
makes it clear how hurt she is by his having sex with Anya. Spike is finally told a truth he didn't want to
hear. Buffy knows he loves her, but because she can't trust him she can't love him back. This leads him to
lose control, he attempts to force Buffy into seeing things the way he does.....he tries to rape her. When
she shoves him back he understands he crossed a line. The most interesting thing to note is that he doesn't
try to continue the attack, he leaves. Spike leaves and goes back to the crypt and relives the scene over and
over, feeling conflicting emotions. He doesn't know how to live in this state of not being monster or man.
He makes a choice he can't come back from the same character we have known him as, he will either go
for bloody revenge or what?
INT. SPIKE'S CRYPT - NIGHT
The door to Spike's
crypt crashes open. Spike bursts in (sans leather coat). Anger, humiliation, and regret swirl across his
tormented face.
INT. BUFFY'S BATHROOM - FLASHBACK (ALREADY
SHOT)
Spike has Buffy on the floor against the bathtub. Her face is twisted in pain as she tries to
push Spike away.
INT. SPIKE'S CRYPT - CONTINUOUS
Spike clenches his
eyes closed, attempting to shut out the incriminating images flashing through his
mind.
INT. BUFFY'S BATHROOM - FLASHBACK (ALREADY SHOT)
Buffy is
on the floor. Spike brutally pins her down.
INT. SPIKE'S CRYPT -
CONTINUOUS
Spike's eyes snap open. He can't shake the images of the attack. He stalks over to his
alcohol stash, pours a glass of vodka with trembling hands and raises it to his lips.
INT.
BUFFY'S BATHROOM - FLASHBACK (ALREADY SHOT)
TIGHT ON BUFFY, in agony, as
Spike tries to rip open her bathrobe.
INT. SPIKE'S CRYPT - CONTINUOUS
Spike
explodes, his emotions boiling over. He crushes the glass of vodka in his hand. He stands there seething,
at war with himself.
CLEM (O.S.)
Um... knock knock?
Spike glances
over. Clem is standing in the doorway, holding a bucket of Hot Wings. He gives a little wave, smiles
awkwardly.
CLEM
I was just in the neighborhood and I thought, you know, there's a
Nightrider marathon on the TV, so, uh...He holds up the bucket of chicken with a grin.
CLEM
(cont'd)
I got Hot Wings!
Spike stands there, trembling,
lost.
SPIKE
What have I done? (then) Why didn't I do it? What has she done to
me?
CLEM
She-done who?
Spike looks away,
ashamed.
CLEM (cont'd)
Oh. The Slayer, huh? Gosh. (sympathetic) She break up with
you again?
SPIKE
We were never together. Not really. She wouldn't lower herself
that far.
CLEM
She's a sweet girl, Spike, but hey. Issues. And no wonder, with the
coming back from the grave and whatnot. I had this cousin, got resurrected by some kooky shaman --
who-boy! Was that a mess!
SPIKE
Why do I feel this way?
CLEM
(shrugs)
Love's a funny thing.
SPIKE
Is that what this
is?
CLEM
Well, I don't know. Drinking, breaking stuff -- how's your appetite? You been
eating?
SPIKE
I can feel it. Squirming inside my
head.
CLEM
Love?
SPIKE
The chip. Little Jiminy Cricket, gnawing bits
and chunks.
Spike puts his fingers to his heads probing harshly as if he's going to gouge the
chip out with his bare hands. Clem eyes him with concern.
CLEM (re: Spike's
head)
Maybe a wet cloth...?
SPIKE
Everything used to be so clear. Slayer.
Vampire. Vampire kills Slayer, sucks her dry, picks his teeth with her bones.
CLEM
(queasy)
Metaphorically?
SPIKE
That's how it's always been. I've tasted the life of
two Slayers. But with Buffy...(hating himself) This isn't the way it's supposed to be. It's the chip. Steel and
wires and silicon. It won't let me be a monster. And I can't be a man. I'm nothing.
Spike's self-
loathing hits an all time low. Clem gives him an encouraging pat on the
shoulder.
CLEM
Hey. Come on now, Mr. Negative. You never know what's just around
the corner. Things change.
Spike considers that, his wheels
turning.
SPIKE
They do. (a beat) If you make them.
Clem grins, slapping him
on the back happily.
CLEM
There you go! Bright side! Chin
up!
SPIKE
She thinks she knows me. She thinks she knows who I am. What I'm capable
of. She has no idea. I wasn't always this way. It won't be easy, but I can be like I was. Before they castrated
me. Before...(a beat) Then she'll see who I really am.
Spike smiles darkly, his eyes dancing
with secret schemes. He grabs a nearby duffle bag - starts throwing stuff into it. Clem totally misses
Spike's sinister intent.
CLEM
Now you're talking!
Clem smiles brightly,
offering Spike a delicious drumstick.
Oh boy, it looks though Spike is going the bloody
revenge route, he prepares to leave town, he stops by the Slayers house (note the tone and calling her
Slayer and not Buffy, the depersonalization doesn't make it look good). Spike
leaves.......
EXT. SUNNYDALE ROAD - NIGHT
Spike roars up on his bike, loaded
with his gear. He pauses, taking in the lights of Sunnydale off in the distance. He takes a drag off his
cigarette, flicks it to the asphalt.
SPIKE
Get nice and comfy Slayer. I'll be back. And
when I do... it's all gonna change.
He pops the clutch and rockets off.
Spike
makes it to Africa in record time (maybe there was a group rate on teleportation spells at seasons end). He
goes in search of a cave, a place that houses a demon, one that doesn't look nearly as meek as
Clem....well, we can't see him.....but his shadow looks ominous. From Villians shooting
script......
EXT. AFRICAN VILLAGE - NIGHT
Spike moves through a remote
African VILLAGE, where fires burn and the natives look strangely at the pale-skinned guy in
black...Spike is clearly a man with a mission. His expression etched with dark determination. He heads
toward a cave at the edge of the village. An African villager stands sentry at the entrance, a long spear in
his hand. He steps in front of Spike.
VILLAGER (Luganda) Toyenza coyengara. Erio
mtuwana. VILLAGER (English) You can't go in there. It's very dangerous.
SPIKE
Not asking permission, mate.
Spike pushes past the villager and
disappears into the cave - the villager follows. but stops at the entrance to the cave. Clearly afraid to go
any further.
VILLAGER (Luganda) Ymirira! odja kufa! Ymirira! VILLAGER (English)
Stop! You'll die! Stop!
INT. AFRICAN CAVE - NIGHT
The villager's voice fades
in the distance as Spike comes to an open area deep in the cave. It is nearly PITCH BLACK. We can just
barely make out Spike in the darkness. Spike flicks his lighter - and we see, briefly, ancient paintings that
line the walls. They all depict scenes of CARNAGE and TORTURE. Horrible sights. Spike examines
them. Then a quick WIND blows out Spike's lighter and he's plunged into blackness again. A VOICE
rises out of the dark - EVIL AND DEMONIC. Chilling.
VOICE
You seek me,
vampire?
Spike actually looks a bit unnerved. But he covers with his usual
bravado.
SPIKE
You do the finger paintings? Nice work.
We can almost
make out something lurking in the darkness, but not quite. We only see hints of a demon tail and red,
burning eyes... Glistening fangs... What little we see gives the impression of something truly
horrible.
VOICE
Answer me.
SPIKE
Yeah. I seek
you.
VOICE
Something about a woman. The slayer-
Now Spike's expression
darkens. Anger rising.
SPIKE
Thinks she's better than me. Ever since I got this bleeding
chip in my head, I haven't been right. Everything's gone to hell-
VOICE
And you want to
return. To your former self...
SPIKE
Yeah.
The voice laughs
darkly.
SPIKE (cont'd)
What?
VOICE
Look what she's reduced you
to.
SPIKE
It's this bloody chip, not-
VOICE (angrier now)
You were
a legendary dark warrior -and you let yourself be castrated. Now you have the audacity to crawl in here
and demand restoration?
SPIKE
I'm still a warrior-
VOICE
You're
a pathetic excuse for a demon-
SPIKE
Yeah? I'll show you who's pathetic. Give me your
best shot, Lurky.
VOICE
You'd never endure the trials required to grant your request-
SPIKE
Do your worst. But when I win, I want what I came here for. (darkly) Bitch is
going to see a change.
I know this is weird, but I kept thinking it was "Barney" in the
shadows, which to me is a nightmare. But Spike is a serious guy and this is a demon, one that confronts
the vampire who had just been admiring the artwork on the cave walls. This demon would most likely eat
Barney (but I could never be that lucky).
Spike makes all sorts of noise about Buffy thinking
she is better than him, is a bitch, he's going to show her.....gee, sounds a bit like "Lovers Walk" at least
Spike doesn't change his tune much when it comes to being rejected by women. The demon gets to the
point......Spike, you are castrated....you are no longer a great dark warrior....you are a pathetic excuse for a
demon. Then the demon says that Spike has the nerve to go there for a
"restoration".......hmmmmmmmm....restore what? Spike can be restored to his former self...leaving two
choices...one a blood sucking dead guy who will show Buffy the err of her ways before he kills her and
adds her to his list of trophies....the next....well let Spike go through the test.
INT.
AFRICAN CAVE - NIGHT
SPIKE stands alone in pitch blackness, his shirt stripped from him, only
pants and barefoot. He moves about anxiously, like a panther. The DEMONIC VOICE from episode 20
speaks to him.
VOICE
You understand, then.
SPIKE
Yeah yeah - it's
not like you haven't been clear about it, oh great mysterious one. (bored) This is a test. I don't get what I
want unless I pass said test. That about the size and
shape?
VOICE
Yes.
SPIKE
And since you got your pad decked out
gladiator style, and no number two pencils have been provided -I guess we're not starting with the
written.
No response.
SPIKE (cont'd)
Well?
Spike turns, to see he
is no longer standing alone. There, facing him in the darkness, is a very large fellow. It seems he's made
entirely of MUSCLES. Spike sizes him up.
SPIKE (cont'd)
Ah. Here we go, then. Just me
and the walking action figure. (to voice) I'm venturing this would be the Kill-or-be-killed type situation,
then?
VOICE
To the death.
Spike squares off with the
Muscles.
SPIKE
Right. (grins) Here we are now. Entertain us.
Muscles
just grins wickedly, and his FISTS BURST INTO FLAME. They provide the only illumination in the
cave, eerily lighting the two combatants.
SPIKE (cont'd)
Oh, son of a
b...
BOOM! Spike gets hit in the side of the head with a flaming fist so hard, he spins and hits
the dirt instantly. He scrambles onto his back, scuttling back like a crab.
Muscles moves in, much
faster than you'd imagine he could, and BOOM! Another punch with his flaming fist fills the frame,
filling it RED...
INT. AFRICAN CAVE - NIGHT
Spike falls hard onto a dirt floor in a
cave. He's been badly beaten, and his body bears more than a few scorch marks. Barely able to lift his
head, he spits blood, stands wobbling on his feet...
SPIKE
Had enough?
In
answer, a FLAMING FIST cracks Spike square in the face. And Muscles starts to pound Spike. It's nearly
over. Spike takes a flaming fist to the stomach - doubles over in agony.
Another shot heads for his
face. Spike holds up a bare palm and catches the punch. Flesh sizzles.
SPIKE
(cont'd)
Ow! Badmove badmove badmove...
Spike backs up. Muscles approaches him,
mayhem in his eyes, and goes for the killer blow when Spike grabs him, rolls with him, gets to his feet
first and just manages to kick Muscles in the balls.
Muscles goes down. Spike leaps upon him and
(out of frame) CRACKS HIS NECK.
It's over. Spike barely manages to get to his feet, but manage he
does. He stands, ringed by the flaming torches. He wipes the blood from his mouth, wearily
triumphant.
He staggers forward. And we see (almost) whom he is addressing: the GLIMPSE OF
DEMON we saw lurking in the darkness in episode 20. Fangs. Eyes. Tail.
SPIKE
(cont'd)
Looks like local boy loses.
VOICE
So it would
appear.
SPIKE
Good on me, then. So? I get what
I came for? I passed,
right?
VOICE
Indeed. You have passed the first
stage of the
test.
SPIKE
Right, then I... wait... first
stage?
Long silence.
SPIKE
(cont'd)
Bugger.
INT. AFRICAN CAVE - MEANWHILE
PUSH IN an interior off-
shooting cave leading into PITCH BLACKNESS. Fierce GROWLS and INHUMAN SCREAMS of
anguish pierce the air. Then, silence. After a few moments...
A HORRIFIC DECAPITATED
DEMON HEAD rolls out into the light. TILT UP as something starts to emerge from the inky darkness.
It's SPIKE, staggering into the light, squinting. He's shirtless, filthy, bruised and bleeding in places.
In his hand, he holds up a SECOND, MORE HORRIFIC HEAD.
SPIKE
(defiant)
Right then. That was a bloody doddle
and a piece
o'piss...
CLOSE as he tosses the HEAD to the ground, then drops to his knees from
exhaustion.
SPIKE (cont'd)
Got any more ruddy tests, ya ponce?
I'll take anything
you throw at me.
If it'll get me what I need to take
care of the Slayer, give her
what's
coming to her, you just bring it on.
Bring on the whole--
He suddenly freezes
when he sees something on the ground.
SPIKE (cont'd)
(under his breath)
Bloody
hell.
His face hardens and his chest muscles tense, preparing himself as...
HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of INSECTS, of various sizes, colors, and species -- though
mostly beetles -- SWARM up his torso.
CLOSER ON SPIKE as the INSECTS crawl onto his head
and face, crawling up his nose... and into his defiantly SCREAMING mouth. The SCREAM carries over
into...
After all that punishment and fighting with Mr. Hands-on-fire, Spike makes it
through the first phase........you know there is a reason that those paintings are on the wall.....this cave is
far from being a one hour Restorationmart. But what was all this about? Spike is going through a lot of
trouble for something he could have kidnapped a good surgeon into doing.....I know he did that already
but it would have saved him a trip to Africa. While all the fuss is going on in Sunnydale, Spike is fighting
for his unlife for something that he feels the Slayer deserves......he keeps calling her
Slayer.....her......bitch........NOT GOOD.
As things come to a conclusion in Sunnydale, Willow is
drained of power, Xander saves the day......Giles is alive!.......and Buffy finally crawls out of the Grave in
the condition we wish she would have at the beginning of the season. Spike is finally revisited......he is
exhausted on the floor of the cave.....he has been through all the tests....and something is
different.........From Grave
INT. AFRICAN CAVE - LATER
PAN ALONG THE
BARREN GROUND, until we come to find
SPIKE, laying on his back, beaten and bloody,
seemingly dead. PUSH IN as the SHADOW of a figure moves and looms over him.
Spike's
eyes flutter open and he looks up at the unseen figure.
VOICE
You have endured the
required trials.
SPIKE
(weakly)
Bloody right I have.
He pushes himself up to
address the DEMON of the cave.
SPIKE (cont'd)
So, give me what I want. Make me
what
I was... so Buffy can get what
she deserves.
VOICE
Very well.
It's
not what Spike says as much as two things, how he says it and the fact that he calls the Slayer, bitch,
better than him girl...Buffy. Stripped of all his bravado, all his persona as a demon, as a killer, an
exhausted heap....Spike finally gets what he came for......and for good measure.....it hurts.........his
soul.
A GNARLY DEMON HAND reaches out to Spike's bare chest
VOICE
(cont'd)
Your soul is returned to you. (the actual words were We will return your soul)
As the
hand touches him, Spike throws his head back and SCREAMS in agony...
There was
some debate over the return of Spikes soul, some thinking he had been tricked, but the writing was on the
wall and in my pre wildfeed prediction. Spike had always been there to get what Buffy deserved, a man to
love who has a soul. A man she can trust, he may still be undead, but with a soul, he is no longer in the
same conflict he was when he only had a chip holding him back. The writers had left many a hint over the
season and still there was enough legitimate doubt there for us to wonder if it were possible for a demon to
choose a soul. Spike did, he chose a soul, he already went through a trial that started from the installation
of the chip in season four. Many times he failed, longing to return to his unfettered demon state. When
Spike discovered his love for Buffy he started a new journey, and that was one
where a demon
grows up. With Drusilla, Spike did what would make her happy, what he felt Dru deserved, of course it
wasn't good for any of his many victims...then he fell in love with a girl who deserved more than bloody
tributes.
The vampire, metaphor for arrested development, isolation, grew up along side the
Scoobies. Is he redeemed.....depends on how you define redemption. I think he made a choice that can't be
ignored or belittled. Where this change will take Spike we hopefully will find out next season, just because
he has a soul doesn't mean he will get the girl, but we can always hope he starts fighting the other
demons, not to look manly, not to make Buffy happy, but because he needs to, wants to.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Forgot a
quote -- Rufus, 03:02:48 06/09/02 Sun
From Drew Greenberg's interview with
the Succubus Club, January 9, 2002........
FROM DAVID: CAN YOU TELL US IF
SPIKE'S CHIP IS EQUAL TO ANGEL'S SOUL, AND EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER?
Drew:
That's an interesting question. I can only speak as an individual, as a fan. This is certainly never a
question that we've discussed in the room. It's a really interesting question. Personally, I don't think
it's the same. The chip prevents you from doing the things you want to do, the soul means that you don't
want to do them, so that's the way that I see them. However what happens to a person when they
are put in the position where they can't do what they want to do? Do they want to do it more? Or do they
become used to not wanting to do it? Or do they see and learn and change the way they
are?
Candy: It's like nature vs. nurture at this point.
Drew: It kindof is.
And isn't that going to be an interesting thing to work out?
That kinda summs up the
feeling of at least one of the writers on the soul vs. chip issue. It also describes what Spike went through
for the year. Just as everyone learned and have changed because of their experiences this year, so has
Spike. He couldn't change his basic nature, and because of that Buffy could never trust him. He then
stopped trying to do things to keep Buffy happy, knowing that her opinion wouldn't change because of her
experiences as the Slayer. What Spike did was slowly relearn humanity enough to make a change that
brought him closer to human and less of a monster to fear.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Forgot a quote -- shadowkat, 05:28:01 06/10/02 Mon
"However what happens to
a person when they are put in the position where they can't do what they want to do? Do they want to do it
more? Or do they become used to not wanting to do it? Or do they see and learn and change the way they
are?"
Fascinating question that I believe they answered in the same way that Anthony Burgess
did years ago in A Clockwork Orange, except in that book it was a violent teenager conditioned to get sick
when he thought of or did violence.
When he gets freed of this conditioning and given a
choice,
he chooses to give up the violence of his own free will in the fitting 21st chapter.
What I find interesting is the question stays with us. A few years ago, I remember people
discussing if we could find the gene or enzyme that causes people to commit murder, and change it - what
would happen. And they were seriously hunting that gene (not sure if they still are) this was reported in
early 90s. Then in psychology - there have been people who have wondered if we could rehabilitate by
conditioning people not to kill. Burgess did not believe
such actions just, neither did Alfred Bester in
his science fiction novel Demolished Man (where a murderer is caught and has his mind literally changed
by telepaths) - both believed the desire to commit violence was choice - not something we were born with.
So has ME taken the opposite take with their vampires? With the mad Dr. Walsh - have they
shown the governement accomplishing what Burgess and Bester suggested in their works? Has Dr. Walsh
managed to change a demon? Is conditioning all it takes?
I don't think so. Remember in
Season 4, where Spike tells the SG continuously that he is still bad, still evil? Even
in OOMM he
continues to try to hurt people. It's really not until he realizes he loves Buffy that he begins to try to
change. Did the chip make this possible? Probably. But did the chip cause all the changes? I don't think
so.
I remember thinking as I was watching a scene between Xander, Giles and Spike in This
Year's Girl - where Xander and Giles ask for Spike's help and Spike tells them he'd
direct the killer
in their direction like a loaded canon.
Giles looks so disappointed. Yet later - in SPiral -
Giles
wants no part of Spike's help - and this time he is actually helping - not because of a chip, but
because of something else - love?
So would Spike have gone for the soul - with just the
changes caused by the chip? Not according to the information provided in Season 4- first half of
five.
It took something else, something that had nothing to do with the chip. Perhaps the chip made
it possible for this to happen, it held back the demon's ability to act.
So what is ME saying
here? Are they saying something about
government conditioning and social change? Are they saying
that we can change behavior with conditioning and that's enough that's right? Or are they saying through
the use of the soul metaphor - that without a clear choice...conditioning can never be enough. Is the soul
their metaphor for free will?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A Clockwork Orange vs. A Terminal Man -- LittleBit, 07:34:39 06/10/02 Mon
I find myself thinking, in regard to Spike's chip and the way it works, that the Initiative was
very lucky that Spike responded the way he did, giving us a story similar to Alex's in Burgess' A
Clockwork Orange. It could have been just as likely, and far more disastrous, given Spike's somewhat
masochistic personality that he would have responded more like Michael Crichton's The Terminal
Man in which the Harold Benson is conditioned much like Spike, with electrodes implanted in his
brain to stimulate his pain response whenever he performs a violent act. Only in this case, the pain
response is pleasurable to Benson, and he escalates his violence in order to increase his
pleasure.
When I first read The Terminal Man I thought it was one of the best
arguments against this type of conditioning that I had seen. Any conditioning of this type when performed
on humans who are notorious for their lack of consistent response to the same stimulus is more likely to
have an anomalous result in at least a small percentage of the subjects. In all honesty, I felt A
Clockwork Orange to give much the same message when Alex found his ability to perform a violent
act also causing him to be unable to defend himself in any way against violence. In the one case, we have
the subject responding in the opposite manner of the intent, and in the other far too well.
Of
course, the story line would haved taken a very different turn in this scenario, and while it would have
given Spike his chance at being a full-fledged big bad, it would have been a far less layered story.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Interpretation of Pain?? -- shadowkat, 11:18:38 06/10/02 Mon
"It could
have been just as likely, and far more disastrous, given Spike's somewhat masochistic personality that he
would have responded more like Michael Crichton's The Terminal Man in which the Harold Benson is
conditioned much like Spike, with electrodes implanted in his brain to stimulate his pain response
whenever he performs a violent act. Only in this case, the pain response is pleasurable to Benson, and he
escalates his violence in order to increase his pleasure."
Hmmm - so it matters how we respond
to the pain or interpret it? If Angelus had received the chip - remember Angel tells Cordy in Billy that as a
demon he enjoyed pain and in What's My Line PArt II - he tells Spike that pain
and torture was what
he and Dru enjoyed and Spike doesn't quite get...so would Angelus been like Terminal Man?
How
about Dru? Who also enjoys torture? Spike says in Lovers
Walk - I'll go back and torture her to win
her back.
So would Dru have reacted differently? Or Kralik - the vampire in Helpless?
So
was it the chip that changed Spike's behavior or Spike's interpretation of it? Did he have control over
that?
Was his way of handling pain a learned human response - from William? Or specific to the
demon?
Another question - some cultures believe resistance to pain is a sign of strength.
Would Spike be considered stronger if he ignored the chip and was still the BB? Or
weaker?
What does Spike's reactions to the chip tell us about his character?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A Clockwork Orange vs. A Terminal Man -- Rufus, 15:12:32 06/10/02 Mon
When I first read The Terminal Man I thought it was one of the best arguments against
this type of conditioning that I had seen. Any conditioning of this type when performed on humans
who are notorious for their lack of consistent response to the same stimulus is more likely to have an
anomalous result in at least a small percentage of the subjects. In all honesty, I felt A Clockwork
Orange to give much the same message when Alex found his ability to perform a violent act also causing
him to be unable to defend himself in any way against violence. In the one case, we have the subject
responding in the opposite manner of the intent, and in the other far too well.
When the
vampire was first created man was primative, then man and the brain became much more complex.
Emotions moved past the need to procreate, eat, survive. As soon as humans were capable of
communicating the world of fantasy opened up to them. Each person is different, what lives in the mind of
one, another may not contemplate at all. Vampires have evolved along with man. The reason the vampire
was created was to curse man with misfortune at the hands of a demon with the face that would get them
close enough to kill. All you have to do is watch Darla and Angelus in action to get an idea of how easy it
is to entrap a victim. With vampires they have a drive to kill, to eat, to feel good....killing what they once
were over and over again. That makes for one great curse when you think about it.
As the
brain has evolved so has the ability to be bored, dissatisfied with repetition. And that is where the
differences in vampires show up. Just as one may just kill in a mechanical way, another vampire will want
to create art, like Angelus. Or like Spike a need for notoriety. But vampires are stuck with the basic wiring
of the person, adapting their fantasies and disapointments and acting them out through killing. Any
potential for progression is lost as a vampire remains in a static state of adolescence.
With the
chip you could have gotten many different responses, but we will only know Spikes response to the chip.
He feared the pain, but if he hadn't discovered his love for Buffy, he would have found ways to work
around the chip, its limitations already tested in Fool for Love. The chip is only part of the equation in the
resulting behavior. It was the man who once was that got out of the cage, and the potential of that man
that Buffy got close to only to find that a monster still lived in his mind when he attempted rape her in
Seeing Red. The writers could have gone with the story you suggest where Spike becomes a bigger bad
than ever, but the story they chose to follow will be less predictable, and more interesting. He understood
that for Buffy to ever be able to trust him he had to permanently cage his monster and allow the man to
shine through. Spike may still be a demon, but we can only guess to how the man will change the overall
package.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Forgot a quote -- Rufus, 14:29:38 06/10/02 Mon
So has ME taken the
opposite take with their vampires? With the mad Dr. Walsh - have they shown the governement
accomplishing what Burgess and Bester suggested in their works? Has Dr. Walsh managed to change a
demon? Is conditioning all it takes?
I hear stuff all the time when they let some of the
more disturbed people out of institutions, "the medication has them under control". People being people,
medication tends to be dumped when a patient isn't in a controlled situation. For Spike his main control
has been the chip. When that chip failed he quickly tried to become a killer again. What happened with
the chip that Maggie designed was unintentional. Just as all people are different those differences follow
them into their lives as a demon. It's clear that vampires will kill when they become infected with the
original demons soul that has been passed through generations of vampires. It's the personality of the
person who once was that will shape how the vampire does the actual killing. Spike as William is only
known as far as the flashback in Fool for Love. We can only guess as to his emotional background, but I
do feel he was very different than Liam/Angelus. His drive to kill was one that was fueled by the need for
recognition and was rewarded by Drusillas favor. His killings were pretty basic "grab and snap" deals, he
got very lucky when he killed both slayers because they were actually more talented fighters than he. He
was lucky to get the decisive upper hand with the two of them. With Buffy, Spike almost got lucky in
School Hard, until her mother lent a hand (well axe in hand).
Spike didn't stop trying to kill
Buffy until OOMM. Then he went through a reverse situation.......he did things to make Buffy happy, only
to be rewarded with rejection.....for good reason. As much as Spike could change with the chip in place,
he could have just as easliy gone back to killing people if he was angered at Buffy and the chip wasn't
functioning to stop him (of course Dru did tell him the chip lies in Crush). If Spike had killed that woman
in Smashed his killing would have fallen into the "I'll teach her a lesson, or I'll show her" the woman
would have been dead and Buffy would have had to finish Spike off. Also his idea of love being something
that burns, consumes, wasn't Buffy's idea of a love that would last. The chip combined with his love for
Buffy caused Spike to do the one thing that would "show her a change". The thing he valued most, the
identity and status of being an accomplished killer, was what he decided to shed. Good thing too because
he would have been a bomb waiting for the right combination of rejection and rage to go off in a way that
he could never have come back from.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
So why does he still have it? (Spoilers for Grave) -- shadowkat, 17:59:13 06/10/02 Mon
"As much as Spike could change with the chip in place, he could have just as easliy gone back
to killing people if he was angered at Buffy and the chip wasn't functioning to stop him (of course Dru did
tell him the chip lies in Crush). If Spike had killed that woman in Smashed his killing would have fallen
into the "I'll teach her a lesson, or I'll show her" the woman would have been dead and Buffy would have
had to finish Spike off. Also his idea of love being something that burns, consumes, wasn't Buffy's idea of
a love that would last. The chip combined with his love for Buffy caused Spike to do the one thing that
would "show her a change". The thing he valued most, the identity and status of being an accomplished
killer, was what he decided to shed. Good thing too because he would have been a bomb waiting for the
right combination of rejection and rage to go off in a way that he could never have come back
from."
Agree with the Buffyverse mythos. But I'm wondering at the metaphor - reality
wise that ME is going for here. (Maybe there isn't one??) Is this the metaphor of the sociopath - who has
no conscience, can love - selfishly
as long as he is rewarded? Or is it the one you
mention
earlier:"I hear stuff all the time when they let some of the more disturbed people out of
institutions, "the medication has them under control". People being people, medication tends to be
dumped when a patient isn't in a controlled situation." " - This btw is a situation that
I am
unfortunately personally familar with since I was recently the victim of faulty decisions by someone who
decided to go off lithium last fall . Recently a friend told me about a woman whose husband went off his
meds and ended up killing his son. So yes - psychiatric patients going off meds become ticking time-
bombs. But is that a clear parellel to the chip or what Xander refers to the leash that keeps Spike in check?
Is medication the same thing as conditioning? I'm not a psychologist so I really don't
know.
But for the purposes of BTVS - I think so. I also think there's more going on here -
some of it has to do with free will - which I believe is partly symbolized by a soul, as stated by Giles in A
NEw MAN - when he becomes a demon, I still have a soul - I can choose - he says. A lot have people
have talked about how horrible Warren was - worse even than the characters without souls (I beg to differ
- Warren after all does not have a 100 years of killing and mayhem behind him - only two deaths. But
that's beside the point. Warren was however the typical sociopathic personality. Unable to feel for anyone.
Seeing people as toys for his amusement. That does not mean he didn't have free will).Warren could
choose whether to be good or evil. Did the fanged four? Do any of the vampires? They have a choice on
how to conduct evil acts,
but they don't appear to have the choice whether or not to lean that way.
Without the chip and the soul - spike's bloodlust would have taken over, his love for Buffy may have
become twisted to the extent that if he couldn't have her no one could - a fear that is more than justified.
His words to her in the bathroom verge on the obsessive.
"I can't get these feelings to stop." - "I will
make you feel me." He reminds me of adolescent romeo or Marlon Brando in Streetcar Named Desire or
even Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights, all obsessive lovers who will violently force their will on the object
of their affections, whatever the cost. Attractive, sexy, but deadly.
It's interesting to me that
the writers chose to let Spike keep the chip. Why do you think that wasn't removed when he got the soul?
With a soul he does have free will - but how much free will really - if the chip is still in place? Does it
matter that it is still in place? He seems to almost be used to it now - not even attempting to hit people.
Nor was he all that interested in getting it removed. When he discovers it's still working he makes the
comment in Smashed - "nothing wrong with me" - which always struck me as odd.
So I have
question for you - if the chip made it possible for him to love Buffy and to learn not to hurt people but
wasn't enough to ensure he wouldn't go back to his wicked ways, hence the AR scene in SR and the
demon eggs, and attempting to bite the kill in Smashed - what is the significance of the chip still being
intact after he gets a soul?? We know he still has it - JE told us he did and so did Fury in recent
interviews. And they were pretty definite. So why? What's the metaphor they are going for here? Or am I
overanalyzing again?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> oops typo in above post - mean "girl" not "kill"..lol! --
shadowkat, 18:02:57 06/10/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: So why does he still have it? (Spoilers for Grave) -- Rufus, 21:54:35 06/10/02
Mon
But is that a clear parellel to the chip or what Xander refers to the leash that
keeps Spike in check? Is medication the same thing as conditioning? I'm not a psychologist so I really
don't know.
I think that's what they were going for, the leash is what has been keeping
Spike a "good dog". There is also the fact that having the chip long enough allowed the humanity that was
part of the man who once was factor into the choice of getting a permanent, way...way better leash. I
understand that for some people nothing, even a soul can stop them from acting out in an anti-social way.
It also would end the constant conflict with feeling bad doing good things. Without the chip in place,
Spike would never have had this choice cause nothing would have stopped him long enough to go through
his unique "growing up process". Using the example of psychiatric meds was a way for me to express my
idea of what the writers were attempting to say.
So I have question for you - if the chip
made it possible for him to love Buffy and to learn not to hurt people but wasn't enough to ensure he
wouldn't go back to his wicked ways, hence the AR scene in SR and the demon eggs, and attempting to
bite the kill in Smashed - what is the significance of the chip still being intact after he gets a soul?? We
know he still has it - JE told us he did and so did Fury in recent interviews. And they were pretty definite.
So why? What's the metaphor they are going for here? Or am I overanalyzing again?
Well,
the demon just may not be into much more than returning souls, so the convenient plot device of the chip
can be still there to make things more interesting for a longer period of time. In other words, I don't know
yet.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Maybe there is a new purpose for the chip, what if? -- shygirl, 09:13:43
06/11/02 Tue
what if he goes a bit insane after getting his soul back. i mean to suddenly
feel the full force of 120+ years of blood on his hands... he was a poet after all, not a violent lout. A
sensitive man might want to commit suicide. What if the watchers get ahold of him, interrogate him, and
re-program his chip to prevent him from harming himself. what if they decide to make use of him. Dawn
is still the key and therefore vulnerable to unscrupulus people who might seek to use her... and he can
certainly understand Willow's agnony like no one else can... maybe?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: So why does he still have it? (Spoilers for Grave) -- anom, 22:50:49 06/10/02
Mon
"With a soul he does have free will - but how much free will really - if the chip is
still in place? Does it matter that it is still in place? He seems to almost be used to it now - not even
attempting to hit people. Nor was he all that interested in getting it removed."
He wasn't?
When he first comes into the demon's cave, he's complaining about the chip. Sure sounded like he wanted
it gone. It was the demon who 1st used phrases like "you want to be what you once were," & I saw Spike's
later "make me what I was" as picking up on how the demon put it. I know what the writers have said, but
they've been known to lie, & I still heard defiance in Spike's voice (played it back to make sure) just before
his soul was restored. If he did want it back, I don't think that wish was conscious.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> What Jane Espenson said about Spikes intent spoilers for season six -- Rufus,
00:38:43 06/11/02 Tue
Spike never at any point said he wanted the chip out, but that
he wanted to be what he once was. He wanted to give Buffy what she deserved. At first in the trials it
could be argued that what he wanted to give Buffy was a bloody death, but his past behavior in love
relationships betrays the fact that his tough talk is just that when it come to someone he loves....talk...he
always does something to try to get the girl back not get even with her be it Dru or Buffy. I think the
writers did a great job of keeping everyone guessing. From the Jane Espenson interview with the Succubus
Club May/02....
Jane: I love Spike. I was very worried about the attempted rape... because
that's not something you play around with. That's not something... it's very hard to come back from. And
you know, you can say Luke and Laura came back from it, but that was a different time. I think we
have to be very careful that we are not saying anything about humans. When we say that Spike looked into
his soul, at that moment, and saw the demon in him and that's what made him want to go get a
soul.
Candy: Ok, ok, this is good. Thank you for going here.
Jane: Yes in my
mind, we did a big ole mislead on you all. Where we wanted you to think he gonna go get the chip.
We knew, the whole time, from the very beginning he was gonna go get a soul. And when he says I
want Buffy to have what she deserves, he means a lover with a soul. Very vague and if we are vague,
we're vague for a reason.
The writers never at any time said what Spike was going to
do, they did keep going on about his soulless state. They knew exactly what they were going for.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: So why does he still have it? (Spoilers for Grave) -- Freki, 07:39:12 06/11/02
Tue
So I have question for you - if the chip made it possible for him to love Buffy and
to learn not to hurt people but wasn't enough to ensure he wouldn't go back to his wicked ways, hence the
AR scene in SR and the demon eggs, and attempting to bite the kill in Smashed - what is the significance
of the chip still being intact after he gets a soul?? We know he still has it - JE told us he did and so did
Fury in recent interviews. And they were pretty definite. So why? What's the metaphor they are going for
here? Or am I overanalyzing again?
There was a quote from SMG at the beginning of S6
that I don't remember exactly, but was something along the lines that over the next 2 years Buffy would
learn that Spike was someone she could trust.
This year has been all about the lack of trust,
and betrayal of trust. Buffy can't love Spike because she can't trust him, and he has shown with the attack
on the alley woman in Smashed, and the demon eggs, that he couldn't be trusted with others. But Buffy
did trust him with herself (the handcuffs in DT, sleeping beside him in AYW), and in SR he betrayed that
trust too. But that betrayal shocked him enough to drive him to truly change.
Now when
Spike comes back to Sunnydale, he's going to need to rebuild that broken trust. I think the chip is going
to be removed to show when he has gained Buffy's trust. I just hope it isn't going to be left until the end of
the season.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Writers
dilemma of a soulless Spike and his continued ability to do good. -- lele, 21:26:36 06/08/02
Sat
really good analysis rufus. you backed your thoughts up well. I agree that whatever
feelings buffy has for spike are due to the hints of the man he was b/f being vamped. The lust may be due
to the dangerous/sexy vampire part, but I think whatever part of her actually cares for him is due to what
he was as a human. For awhile I've felt that the only way for him to integrate into the SG was for him to
b/c more william-like and it seems that ME feels he needs a soul for this. I'm okay with that although this
season has made it quite clear that having a soul does not equal being good/redemption- but having a soul
will make it easier for him to make the right decisions.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent post (as
always), Rufus. I have to disagree about one point, though... -- Ixchel, 23:48:33 06/08/02 Sat
IMHO, that the SG would be wary of Spike is perfectly sensible, but I don't believe that much
of the treatment in question from Buffy and Xander was based on Spike's past actions. For example,
IMHO, when Buffy hit him the first time in AYW (before she saw the demon eggs), it was because she
was ashamed, not because of anything she thought he'd done. And when Xander started an argument
with Spike (who was leaving) in NA, I believe it was because Xander was upset with himself about Anya.
Then Spike made him angry with an accurate barb and so Xander hit him, again having more to do with
how Xander felt about himself than with Spike. Of course, I understand why Buffy and Xander behaved
this way, they were having emotional difficulties (_particularly_ Buffy) and I don't expect them to be
perfect (I expect them to falter and make mistakes). But, this doesn't mean I think their behavior was
condonable. And it _is_ distressing (to me) especially because it demeans them.
As to
reverting, a similar statement could be made about Angel (just as Spike could lose the chip, it's possible
for Angel to lose his soul). He seemingly wanted his soul gone when he slept with Darla, though, I tend
to believe that some part of him knew this wouldn't make him truly happy. Still, he took the chance,
knowing that (at the very least) the first thing Angelus would do is kill his friends horribly. Now, it's
unlikely that Angel will take this chance again, but it's possible. Does anyone think that Angel should be
rejected because of this? I don't and I do understand why he acted the way he did (his despair). Of
course, this similarity would seem to be irrelevant now that Spike has a soul (presumably without a
"clause").
An aside, am I the only one who thinks Spike was trying to be amusing with the
decorator comment and wasn't serious? Not because he couldn't have eaten a decorator, but just the
oddness of him knowing this. I mean, did he ask, "what line of work are you in" before bitting? Or hire a
decorator and later decide to make a meal of him/her? It just seems strange.
Again, wonderful
post. I hope I don't seem too argumentative, as I very much admire your
opinions.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent post
(as always), Rufus. I have to disagree about one point, though... -- Rufus, 01:37:43 06/09/02
Sun
Nope he was attempting a bit of humor there.
As for arguing, no problem
there either. I give the SG a bit more of a break because they are young people trying the best they can to
grow up, and we all have done things that we would like to go back and change. How would we ever
become better people if we didn't make mistakes. But if you compare the mistakes Spike has made and
what the SG has gone through for six years, I still cut them more slack than Spike cause he has seniority
in years...it's clear this year not only the SG was growing up but Spike was as well. I would like to see
what Spike thinks of his years as a vampire when his soul is returned. Also how his relationships with the
SG may change as well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Scarring,
mistakes, senority and Spike S7... -- Ixchel, 17:51:25 06/10/02 Mon
I agree that
the SG has been through a lot. They are traumatized and battle-scarred. Actually, I think it's somewhat
ironic that they were supposed to "grow up" this season, because I thought that's what they were doing all
along (under incredibly harsh circumstances). But, concerning mistakes, I doubt that Xander will ever
acknowledge (or, worse really, ever think) that it was inappropriate to hit Spike, just because he could and
he felt bad. It reminds me of Faith and her beating on vampires (which Buffy tried to call her on),
drawing it out because of her own emotional problems. It disturbs me that Xander could act this way and
not ever realize it (I like Xander). As to senority, I think Spike only started "growing" again (at least
positively) post-chip and realization of love for Buffy. So, IMHO, he's not really that much more mature,
at least psychologically (I've thought the same thing about Angel, but he did have more time, 95 years
post-souling compared to 3 years post-chip). Regarding how Spike will consider his existence post-soul, I
previously thought that, if souled, Spike would find the nearest unshaded place at midday (considering the
differences in personality between him and Angel, who needed prompting). I suppose I was wrong,
maybe he will be more pragmatic about his guilt (like his statement in Pangs about there being nothing
that could make reparations to the Chumash). I do hope that he isn't too depressive, as it's (probably) the
last season and S6 provided quite a bit of depression. And I do wonder how it'll be possible for him to
interact with the SG at all (though presumably, he will), because of the scene in SR (and Xander and
Dawn knowing about it). I mean even _if_ they know about the soul (how he will prove that, I've no
idea). And I hope that he has more interaction with the SG (not just Buffy) in S7 than Angel did in S3.
I'm fairly resigned to the fact that (after everything in S6) there won't be any of the great camaraderie
between Spike and Xander (Spiral, TWOTW) ever again. And, just as I'm worried about Dawn and
Willow's relationship, I wonder if her and Spike's relationship can ever be good again. That's me, though,
I lack imagination. :)
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Scarring, mistakes, senority and Spike S7... -- Rufus, 22:03:57 06/10/02 Mon
Regarding how Spike will consider his existence post-soul, I previously thought that, if
souled, Spike would find the nearest unshaded place at midday (considering the differences in personality
between him and Angel, who needed prompting). I suppose I was wrong, maybe he will be more
pragmatic about his guilt (like his statement in Pangs about there being nothing that could make
reparations to the Chumash). I do hope that he isn't too depressive, as it's (probably) the last season and
S6 provided quite a bit of depression.
I know many out there are calling the resouling of
Spike lacks imagination, but I look forward to just how Spike/William will react to being a man with a
demon inside instead of the reverse being true. If we only think of originality, then why are all books,
movies, and television frequently telling the same story in slightly different ways all the time? People
connect and identify with certain types of situations such as loss of innocence and growing up, and losses
in fortune, be it monetary or love. This is why the resouling of Spike doesn't really bug me. Angel and
Spike are such different personalities that getting their souls back is only the first chapter in a new journey
for each man/vampire.
As for Xander and Spike, sure it wasn't the greatest thing for him to
punch Spike around, but I understand why he did it, and it could have turned out way more dusty. People
don't always do the right or best thing, but we can't judge Xander as a whole on a few bad things and
forget the fact that he has been onboard since season one when he could have like many others in
Sunnydale chosen to ignore the goings on around him. Heroes aren't always heroic, cause they are men
and women, not perfect..or they would be gods...and I don't mean Glory type gods...;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Originality, bravery and perfection... -- Ixchel, 23:27:14 06/10/02 Mon
I'm
looking forward to S7 also, for the reason you state and many others (October is _so_ far away). You're
absolutely correct about originality, often it's not the story, it's how it's told (as Shakespeare proved). That
Spike _chose_ a soul (going by what JE said in the Succubus Club interview), puts a twist on the whole
soul issue and makes the story significantly different (to me). I was a bit disappointed, at first, but it's so
much better than him returning as the BB or being staked (for me anyway, I like the character and I prefer
him "good").
I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought those few incorrect actions were
the totality of Xander (I don't). And I do admire both Xander and Willow for stepping forward,
acknowledging the truth and wanting to help. That's bravery (IMHO), being afraid and doing what needs
to be done anyway. Also, I really don't expect perfection. Watching the perfect actions of perfect heroes
probably wouldn't be terribly interesting. :)
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Originality, bravery and perfection... -- Rufus, 00:42:09 06/11/02 Tue
Perfect Heroes suck......;) Already counting down for season seven.
Xander is an
underappreciated character. He has to be the one that does the falls, plays the nerd (he's awfully good
looking for a nerd). I can't see the show without him, he is just that good and good with comedy...he also
workes well with Spike when they can stand each other.
[> [> [> [> Faith without works. Catholics and
Protestants. -- Sophist, 17:52:49 06/06/02 Thu
The position that "good works
alone cannot lead to salvation" is a position I remember studying from a class on world religions and I
don't remember which religion took that position, but I believe the second half of the position stated that
one must be "born again" to be saved.
Catholic doctrine is that the performance of certain
sacraments is necessary for salvation. Protestants took the position that faith alone justified the believer.
Catholics argued that this was sterile ("faith without works is dead"), because it didn't require the
performance of any good actions. Protestants take the position that the person who is saved will of course
perform good acts, but that justification comes first.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Faith without works. Catholics and
Protestants. -- Arethusa, 05:34:54 06/07/02 Fri
>>Catholic doctrine is that
the
performance of certain sacraments is necessary for salvation.
I'm not sure this is still
considered correct. Mind you, my perspective is that of a (formerly) Catholic layperson, not a scholar, so I
could be totally wrong, but my daughter and I just took the classes to prepare her for her First
Communion, her second Sacrament, and the instructers said nothing about sacraments being necessary for
salvation. Are you talking about baptism being required to wash away Original Sin? I do remember
lessons from the old Boston Catechism that said a baby would go to limbo if it died before it was baptised;
that no one could go to heaven if they were'nt baptised. I just don't know if this is still considered true.
So many things changed with Vatican II, and someone my age would have been told slightly different
beliefs and practices than someone older.
Can anyone set me straight?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Faith without works. Catholics
and Protestants. -- dream of the consortium, 07:33:34 06/07/02 Fri
I'm sure I
know less about this than some people on the board, and I'm coming from the same background you are
(formerly Catholic layperson), but from what I remember of my Catholic school upbringing in the 70s and
80s (solidly post-Vatican), the beliefs were still in place, just downplayed when embarassing. We were
taught about limbo, but only once and quickly. I was under the belief (I'm digging back to grade school
now, bear with me) that there were three levels of Catholic teaching: dogma, doctrine, and tradition.
Dogma was the stuff at the top - there is one God in three persons, Jesus died on the cross and was
resurrected - and that could not change, ever. Doctrine was just below that, and dealt with things like
Mary, the Second Coming, and so on. These things pretty much never changed, but possibly could be
altered by the Council of Bishops and papal decree, or something like that (I'm vague on that part -
anybody?). Tradition was the smallest stuff, like not eating before Mass, and that could be changed. (It
was also not a mortal sin to disagree with the Church on matters of tradition, though unless you believed
there was a distinct moral necessity to do otherwise, you still had to go along with the Church's teaching
in your behavior.) Vatican II was mostly concerned with the clearing away of traditions, and didn't touch
dogma, of course, nor did it (again uncertain) really get into any doctrine. For example, indulgences, I
believe, were considered tradition, not doctrine. Now the question is of course whether the requirement of
sacraments for salvation is doctrine, and I am almost certain that it is. After all, that's what makes the
Church necessary, to serve as a mediator between the individual and God. Now, the Protestants would
argue (and in fact did) that there is no need for a mediator between God and the individual. The Catholic
Church disagrees, on the basis that the lack of such mediation a) ignores the importance of community
and b) allows for the growth of heretical beliefs because c) the authority of the Church as given to Peter by
Jesus is ignored.
I'm getting way off the point. The thing is, the major ideas tend to stick in the
thinking, but the teaching gets blurred. CCD instructors are generally nice young girls from the
community with no training who read from the textbook (trust me, I was one in high school, strangely
enough); older religious and laypeople teach what they learned when they were young, regardless of what
changes may have occurred and so on. The Church in different countries tends to take on the values of
the community - even to the degree that U.S. churches can differ significantly by the ethnicity of the
congregration. The most active Church members often, in my experience, have the most limited
understanding of underlying Church beliefs, but an extensive knowledge of tradition. So you are unlikely
to be able to determine the Church's offical doctrine by asking anyone, even a priest. You really have to go
to the Catechism (or find a Jesuit). And I am pretty sure you would still find the same role for the
Sacraments indicated above.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the information,
Dream of the Consortium -- Arethusa, 08:15:22 06/07/02 Fri
I was very suprised
at how little doctrine the teachers covered.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks for the
information, Dream of the Consortium -- Ronia-amusing story, 08:36:11 06/07/02 Fri
about a woman I know who is a former Catholic, and went to private Catholic school. As a
child she was told that in purgatory, the floor would be painfully hot to help purge the sins of people there
before they went to heaven.....so she used to practice by walking barefoot on hot sidewalks to toughen up
her feet. She figured if she just prepared everything before hand she'd be O.K. :-p
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Faith without works.
Catholics and Protestants. -- Sophist, 08:38:12 06/07/02 Fri
Good job, dream. I
only know this stuff from reading history, you actually had it as part of your upbringing. As far as I know,
everything you said is correct.
And Arethusa, I'm virtually certain that Catholicism still
requires the performance of at least some sacraments for salvation (baptism and extreme unction, at
least).
My original post emphasized the differences between Protestants and Catholics as they
appeared in the early Reformation. Since then, they have moved closer to each other. Catholics agree that
faith is essential, Protestants assure everyone that justification will result in good works. It's partly a
question of which comes first, partly a question of emphasis, and partly a question of who you talk
to.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Events, dear boy,
events" (o/t history geek post) -- Rahael, 09:29:14 06/07/02 Fri
Completely
o/t, and not even necessary to this thread cos Sophist has covered this already. I just couldn't
resist.
The Reformations always serves to emphasise to me how important the dynamic of
events and human agency is.
The Catholic church alway thought that faith was pretty
important, and predestination wasn't conjured up out of the blue by Calvin - it was always a strand of
thought in Church theology. Augustine was not only important to the Protestant Reformation, he was a
central figure in the Catholic Reformation.
The English Protestant clergyman (I'll admit he
leant toward the high end of the CoE) William Baxter stated in the early 17th Century that those who
'were predestinate to the ends were predestinate to the means' - this was a inescapable conclusion to a
religious movement with a strong concern for regulating social and sexual
morality/activity.
Personally, I'd say what really split Christendom was the dynamic view of
God's presence on earth held by Protestants. Who needed the centuries of careful thought, of tradition
when you could speak to God himself? Who needed the revered hierarchy of the Church when you
believed in the brotherhood of all saints? For Ignatius Loyola, the Holy Catholic Church was so important,
that for her, he would swear black was white and white was black. For Protestants, this was a kind of
idolatory, the worship of men over God.
I agree with you Sophist - it's a question of emphasis,
and always was. The fact that the theological disputes between the two reform movements were so
obscure, but the emotions so urgent, and so high, only serves to make the Reformation era so
fascinating.
("Events, dear boy, events" - famous quote by British Prime Minister MacMillan
when asked what Prime Ministers should fear)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
"Events, dear boy, events" (o/t history geek post) -- Sophist, 10:32:13 06/07/02
Fri
As one history geek (or is it nerd) to another, I agree -- it was the rejection of the
Church as an institution that made the split impossible to smooth over. Doctrine can be carefully stated to
avoid disputes (just think of the 39 Articles), but the concepts of sola scrittura and direct communion with
God undercut the Church in a way that could never be compromised.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
"Events, dear boy, events" (o/t history geek post) -- redcat, 10:32:23 06/07/02 Fri
"William Baxter stated in the early 17th Century that those who 'were predestinate to the ends
were predestinate to the means' - this was a inescapable conclusion to a religious movement with a strong
concern for regulating social and sexual morality/activity."
Yes, and it leads directly to my
favorite 17thC quote by a Puritan colonial: Cotton Mather, "The lines of the Elect run through the loins
of the Elected" -- the inescapable conclusion of a movement's elite with a strong penchant both for
making money and making sure their descendants (literally) inherited the earth...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And they
failed completely (thank God) -- Sophist, 10:39:54 06/07/02 Fri
First the
Halfway Covenant, then they gave up entirely. Next thing ya know, there were all those pestiferous
Quakers and Baptists running around.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I
don't know about "completely"... -- redcat, 11:09:49 06/07/02 Fri
The direct descendants of New England Congregationalists still own about 17% of the total
land mass of Hawai'i... and their intellectual/political descendant, the US government, owns close to 25%.
I'd call that a pretty significant inheritance, myself.......
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Failed religiously -- Sophist, 12:32:54 06/07/02 Fri
They failed at salvation for
their children. Who then became this-worldly enough to exploit the native Hawaiians. And a few other
ethnic groups along the way for good measure. Gotta love those missionaries.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
So my question remains unanswered.... -- shygirl, 13:06:48 06/07/02 Fri
So, does this mean that Spike has gone to be "born again" and does Willow need to be
"saved?"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Not unanswered, just multiple answers. -- Sophist, 13:32:00 06/07/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I was never very good at theology..too easily confused.:-) -- shygirl, 17:03:16
06/07/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: So my question remains unanswered.... -- shadowkat, 19:11:28 06/07/02 Fri
"So, does this mean that Spike has gone to be "born again" and does Willow need to be
"saved?""
It all depends on whether Joss had is former Catholic or
a
Protestant.
Being a former and non-practicing Catholic taught by 30-something CCD teachers
and parents who didn't like Catholic dogma and having an uncle that's a priest...my take?
We're
complicating it. But then...I sort of gave up on organized religion a while ago, too many rules, too many
pat answers, and no tolerance for my questions. (I have considered Wicca a few times..Wicca fascinates
me.)
Spike will only be saved - if he can do good on his own without the need to impress
someone. Ie. chooses to do good.
And here's the old religious catch-22 that I was taught:
You
have to do good because you want to do good not for a reward. Doing good to impress someone
or to
win something in return - isn't enough, partly because how do you know it's good? I mean what if the
person you're trying to impress isn't being good? (example
boinking Buffy whenever she needs to
feel? Or attacking Glory with dark magic to save someone?)
That's Willow's whole dilemma.
She's lost the compass.
What's good? Is it good to let a man like Warren go free?
Awfully easy
for Buffy to think so - after all it wasn't Dawn, Warren shot and killed. (See Tough Love for an interesting
comparison - Buffy doesn't get why Willow went after Glory until Dawn says, what if it was me?) But gee,
when Faith tried to kill Angel, Buffy certainly went after Faith guns blazing. Even tried to give Faith over
to Angel to drain...
I think the problem with redemption in our society is it is in the eyes of the
beholder. The organized Religions believe it governs the rules. The justice system thinks they do. I
remember sitting in on the debate for the death penalty in Kansas - the pro-death penalty camp won using
passages from the old testament of the St. James version of the Bible. Frightening. Religion can be used
to
accomplish evil deeds. Redcat and sophist provide some great examples. As a result it's a bit hard
for me to buy organized judeo/Christian religion views on the topic.
I think redemption is on a
case by case basis in our world and the buffyverse. It does involve a little desire on the part of the
individual. As MN put it - to redeem Spike, we have to show first that he wants to be redeemed. Willow
must show the same desire. Can anyone be redeemed? Well, there's an old native american saying or
maybe just my
granny quoting the native americans - you shouldn't judge someone until you've
walked a mile in their shoes. Once you do...maybe you can tell if they can be redeemed. Personally,
I
think they can. And I've been in Leavenworth Pentitentiary counseling murderers...but I'm glad I'm not
the one making the decision.
Not sure if that helped or just confused things further.
Cool
discussion though. And great posts by redcat and sophist and dream of consortium...took me back in
time.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Yes it did and that is why I liked the article I found on selfish love -- shygirl,
09:08:22 06/08/02 Sat
Yes, your explanation makes sense to me the way the eternal
bickering over religious credo never does... I too was a cradle Catholic but have become totally
disenchanted with all religious cant that says you cannot be a good person unless you follow our particular
path. I suppose I am actually a univeralist. I don't think any of us need to be "saved" because I don't
believe any of us is lost, we are all a part of the universe even Spike and Willow. They are struggling to
find a path through their "lives" that works and makes sense and sometimes they take a dead end. Just like
the rest of us. We find their stories compelling because it helps us reflect on our own journey's and values.
Tara had to die, she was the only one who was whole, who had completed her journey and her story. She
was complete...and unfortunately, we don't seem to be able to learn much from those who have completed
their journey, we seem to do better looking out across the path at what others are doing...
Both
Willow and Spike have now looked into some very dark corners of their souls and know what evil they are
both capable of and it will be their choice how they incorporate this knowledge into thier journey. We may
not like the choices they make because they do not match the choices we would make for ourselves or for
those we love... but then, if we are truely "enlightened" we understand our choices can only be our own. I
think self-governance is the hardest thing to learn and we see that repeatedly demonstrated in all of the
scoobies.... they keep trying though and that's the important thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Catechism and Jesuits --
shygirl, 09:17:25 06/08/02 Sat
"You really have to go to the Catechism (or find a
Jesuit)."
Yes, I think as the church has become more centralized in the control part, it has
become very confused at the local pastoral level. that's why so many are looking in unusual places, like
this board, for philosophical discussions on good and evil and the question of morality.
[> [> Moral Compasses -- SpikeMom, 14:47:12 06/07/02 Fri
If Spike is falling down the metaphorical stairs because of his lack of a moral compass,
perhaps the boy needs a moral gyroscope instead...
[> Re: Buffy in Season 6 -- Brian, 12:15:45 06/06/02
Thu
Actually, Buffy did come back wrong. She thought she was in Hell, and the whole
season was about her trying to get back to Heaven. And to reach that goal, she did a lot of very bad things,
and she hurt all her friends as well as herself, and nearly destroyed her relationship with Dawn. In the
finale, she finally realizes why she was allowed to come back, to define her "calling:" to be the mentor to
Dawn; to be a ray of hope(laughter) for her friends; and to share herself with the world. Her calling was to
live, to feel, to help, to grow up, and, perhaps, to finally find love.
[> Mr. Burns Scenario -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:06:21 06/06/02
Thu
I would really love it if it played out like this:
On an episode of the
Simpsons once, the evil billionaire/pollution king, Mr. Burns, lost all his money and tried to become
successful again using good methods that would help the environment. So he built a giant recycling plant,
that recycled every animal in the sea into a food like substance. This spawned a line I think would be
good to apply to Spike, "You don't get it, you're still evil. And when you try to be good, you're even more
evil."
Maybe Spike's good intentions with his soul will actually be more damaging than
anything he did to the Scooby Gang when he was still soulless.
[> if this were true, what are the consequences? -- Dochawk,
14:50:52 06/06/02 Thu
if this were true, that a vampire was able to fight for good just
because he wanted to, what does that imply aboput Buffy and her mission? And what would Buffy feel
once she realized it? Spike isn't a particularly well known or worthy vamp (the anoited one nor the master
knew of him, thousands of vamps before him had killed a slayer, many would have gotten more than one).
If he has a soul all along, is capable under his own power to fight for good, why do we need a slayer? And
doesn't she become a mass murderer. Perhaps she should get a stun gun like Spike used in Crush andn
Connor used on Angel and stun every vamp into submission and teach them to be good. Buffy would be
horrified to learn this was possible and that she would be the agent of so much death among redeemable
vamps. Something has to be intrinsically changed in Spike to make his drift towards good a real change
(I will still argue that Spike has done little for good, that his motivations for anything positive wer selfish
and mostly about his obsessions with the Summers women and he has an awful lot to prove before he even
gets to Angel's understanding, let alone Buffy's).
[> [> Re: if this were true, what are the consequences? --
dream of the consortium, 08:06:43 06/07/02 Fri
That's part of why I really like this
possible scenario. I would love to see Buffy struggle with that sort of question - is rehabilitation possible?
On a mass scale? How? That's why my ideal next season involves Xander getting vamped. What would
Buffy do? Curse him? Call Riley and see if he knows any good chip-installers? Search the world for
possible cures? Look him up in Spike's basement and try to "de-program" him? I'm probably the only
person who is holding out hope for that storyline, but there it is, nonetheless.
[> [> [> Re: if this were true, what are the consequences?
-- Ronia, 08:39:22 06/07/02 Fri
that would be a good one! 'specially after this season's
finale.
[> [> [> I love the idea!! -- Sophist, 08:41:34
06/07/02 Fri
And I also agree that soulless rehabilitation (I'm no longer going to call it
redemption) is much more interesting.
[> [> [> [> dream and Sophist - love both ideas! --
Caroline, 09:07:58 06/07/02 Fri
[> [> [> Hadn't thought of it, but I love the idea --
Dochawk, 14:31:05 06/08/02 Sat
[> One change is imminent, I believe *Spoilers for SR* --
Tillow, 04:59:05 06/07/02 Fri
Lunarchick and I are always discussing whether or not
Angel's soul made him feel guilty because it was cursed or simply because the presence of a soul alongside
the demon isn't a natural occurrence.
I don't think Angel has a "cursed" soul and therefore I
think Spike will feel the same crushing guilt that Angel does. The difference is what they will do about it.
I DO NOT think we are about to see Broody Junior. I'm thinking the major change will be...Spike will
finally be able to answer that question Buffy asked in the Bathroom in Seeing Red. "Ask me again why I
could never love you."
Other than that, I think he will be a very similar character. The
changes will be in their perceptions of him.
[> [> Re: One change is imminent, I believe *Spoilers for
SR* -- Dochawk, 13:29:15 06/08/02 Sat
This is a debate we are going to have all
summer. But, I disagree with you. I think (and hope) we have seen the last of Spuffy as a couple. How
will Spike prove to Buffy he has a soul? How will Buffy perceive him as different. And even if she does, I
doubt that she will be able to overcome the AR (its another bad message that ME sends if she does, even
in her Succubus Club interview JE mentions how careful they have to be to avoid sending the wrong
message, like Luke and Laura). Spike's gonna come back all chivalrous and swooning, but I don't think
Buffy is gonna be all that receptive. And as many other posters have noted, nothing about gaining a soul
makes Spike good, it just gives him the potential for doing good for truly selfless reasons, which he was
incapable of before.
[> [> [> "Spike's gonna come back all chivalrous and
swooning" -- Dariel, 14:40:01 06/08/02 Sat
I seriously doubt this; too
straightforward. If the soul means anything, Spike's going to come back all depressed and convinced that
he doesn't deserve Buffy at all. ME loves irony too much for anything else to happen.
[> [> [> [> Re: "Spike's gonna come back all
chivalrous and swooning" -- Dochawk, 22:40:09 06/08/02 Sat
I think he is
going to come back the man he was, Willaim and write Buffy bad love poems and try to romance her.
I hope your right though, cause that means the end to any possibility of romance, since Buffy
won't reinitiate it.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: "Spike's gonna come back all
chivalrous and swooning" -- Doriander, 22:54:31 06/08/02 Sat
I'm with
Dariel. It would just add to the irony that Spike sought out something he thought would make him
deserving of Buffy (if we go by what JE said), and it ends up being something that purges him of this
obsession he has with her. I think once conscience sets in, he's bound to reprioritize. But then again, who
knows? Spike tends to be unpredictable, and ME loves to play.
[> [> [> Dochawk -- Tillow, 07:32:56 06/11/02
Tue
I certainly don't think he is going to be swoony. What I said in my post is that he's
going to be able to answer her question. Meaning... he's going to finally 'get it'. I think, if anything. He's
going to want her to stay away from him and try to pay off some sort of guilt-ridden debt of gratitude for
all the time she didn't stake his worthless ass. Other than that I think he'll be the same gruff Spike with
the soft underbelly.
But do I think this is the end of Spuffy? Don't fool yourself. Do I think it
should be? Yes. I don't think attempted rape should be a part of romance. A bit confusing for the kiddies.
But this show is more than likely only going to go for just one more year and this romance is a 2 year plot.
They wouldn't have resouled him if it wasn't going to be.
We haven't seen the last of Buffy's
"Why can't I love?" issues. Dying for the love of a sister isn't the same as male/female or two adults of
WHATEVER gender. Buffy needs to figure out what the spirit guide in the desert was on about. She
hasn't done that yet.
Angel tortured her and killed her father figure's girlfriend and she
welcomed him back into her heart, almost killed a human, and almost let him kill her in order to same
him. I hate to say it, but I think they are going to find a way past this attempted rape.
Tillow
[> That Summer -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:04:30 06/07/02
Fri
Some people have argued that Spike developed something of a moral compass since
he stayed with Dawn during the summer Buffy was dead, when it couldn't earn him any brownie points
with her. However, what people seem to forget is that Spike and Dawn get along well. They generally
seem to like each other. Therefore, Spike's motivation would be one of looking after Dawn because he
likes her and feels happier when she's around.
[> [> And this means? -- shygirl, 09:34:06 06/08/02
Sat
So, if I agree to take care of my sister's dog all summer because she needs to be away
it reflects nothing about my goodness or morality because I like her and therefore want to do something
nice for her?
IMO by the standards of this board no one is good because we all are motivated
by self interest and what makes us feel good. Altruistic love almost borders on indifference to the
individual because it looks to the greater good of all. It is an abstract concept that very few humans can
live up to, yet there seems to be an expectation that a bunch of young people just moving into adulthood
should have already met and exceeded this altruistic standard.
We're all selfish beings ... or
we're doormats. We have to have boundries or we allow ourselves to be abused. I think this show is a lot
about learning where boundries need to be established for ourselves and others in how we allow ourselves
to be treated and how we treat others. Buffy walked away from Spike because she realized she had crossed
the boundries and was being an abuser... Spike may be learning that he needs boundries to keep from
being an abused doormat or an abuser...IMO
[> [> [> Re: And this means? -- Arethusa, 10:06:10
06/08/02 Sat
>>Altruistic love almost borders on indifference to the individual because it
looks to the greater good of all.
>>We're all selfish beings ... or we're doormats.
I
very much disagree. I can understand why you say this because I've read a little Ayn Rand, but love is not
an either-or situation. Selflessness does not necessarily mean obsorption by another. Balance is the key to
most relationships, where the two involved can alternate and share responsibilities, duties, power and
control. Giving of yourself, giving up personal power for the good of the relationship, putting someone
else's good above one's own-these are scary things to do. I imagine they were terrifing to Rand, who lived
through the Russian Revolution and rise of communism. But people can't spend all their time in a
relationship jockeying for power, and both will need to compromise or the relationship will turn into a
Cold War. There is a middle ground, where people can retain their identities in a relationship, while
creating a new identity as part of the relationship or family the two people created.
Sorry-a bit
muddled and ranty.
[> [> [> [> Re: And this means? -- shygirl,
18:33:57 06/08/02 Sat
the new literature on relationships talks about boundries and
loving yourself before you can love another... yes, balance is the best way... and either/or is not what I was
meaning... you have to be a bit selfish before you can be loving.
Why the picking? -- Magus777, 13:27:19
06/06/02 Thu
I just don't understand why these critics keep picking on Joss Whedon
about Tara's and Willows relationship. All they see is bloodshed, drugs, addiction, etc. Well gosh. I'm
both a magician and gay and I see nothing wrong. Though Tara died, I still enjoyed the last
episodes.
(Joke)
I doubt these critics are gay or Buffy Fans.
=)
By the
way, I don't care what anyone says. I love Dark Willow to death!
[> I have to agree... -- GreatRewards, 14:25:23 06/06/02
Thu
Dark Willow Rocks!!!
"bored now."
flicks finger
"R-r-
r-r-r-i-p!!"
Warren ala Predator!
Right On Will!
[> Re: Why the picking? -- Dochawk, 14:38:36 06/06/02
Thu
I am not gay, but I am a Buffy fan. And it bothered me alot. Read the above article
for a better explanation than I have ever been able to produce.
[> Re: Why the picking? -- JM, 05:41:07 06/07/02 Fri
Thanks for weighing in. Havn't seen your name on the board before (though I'm not the most
observant), think I recognize it from TWoP. It's been an interesting and well-mannered debate over here,
thank goodness. Your opinion is a good reminder that the most important part of diversity is diverse
views among diverse people. About half-way down the page is a good re-exploration of the topic.
Though I think the article that Dochawk posted is the most balanced discussion of objections I've yet
read.
[> Re: Why the picking? -- cjc36, 09:55:30 06/07/02 Fri
AH got a chance to take her talent for a spin in playing Dark Willow. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
I realize she imbues NormalWillow with a quiet humor, and shy but sly smile, but unlike VampWillow,
which was played for camp value, in playing Dark Willow she got to be really, really nasty. And it was
fun as heck to watch.
And Goth did look good on her.
Witch Love Spells Death (not an anti-ME
diatribe) -- Dochawk, 14:36:11 06/06/02 Thu
I think the article below is
one of the sweetest evaluations of the W/T relationship I have read. The author obviously loves Buffy and
knows it. She also obviously respects JW. Its also the clearest and most benign explanation of why so
many people were upset with ME that I have read.
Witch love spells death
Was the
killing of Tara on Buffy the Vampire Slayer a bold plot move or just another dead lesbian on TV?
By Jennifer Greenman
When the sixth season of Buffy The Vampire Slayer
played out its final story arc last month, the death of sweet, shy witch, Tara Maclay, left viewers shocked
and grieving. For almost three seasons Tara, played by Amber Benson, was half of the most believable
long-term lesbian couple on television. When she was senselessly killed by a stray bullet, throwing witchy
lover, Willow (Alyson Hannigan), into a descending spiral of dark magic, grief and madness, many of us
in the show's gay fanbase were left feeling angry and betrayed by a show that once held the most promise
of anything on network TV.
For six years Buffy The Vampire Slayer has used metaphors of
the supernatural to explore human emotions and conflicts. What elevates this series above the majority of
sci-fi/horror shows is how its creators consistently spin conventional storylines and old clichés into
original tales of intelligent self-empowerment. The title character, Buffy (Sarah Michelle Geller), is the
kind, smart-mouthed, blond fashion plate that ends up dead in the first 10 minutes of any horror film.
Instead, she kicks ass and saves the world from evil on a weekly basis. None of the characters are ever
played as straight-up stereotypes, as series creator Joss Whedon takes care to make sure that all the
characters are multidimensional and sympathetic. Along with the continual mix of comedy, drama and
horror, this is what made the show a cult hit.
Buffy's main sidekick, the hacker/witch Willow,
is just as popular with fans as is Buffy. And when the character of Tara, introduced in season four,
evolved into Willow's love interest, many gay fans were elated. As the couple progressed, we felt like we
were witnessing a miracle--a lesbian relationship on network television that lasted longer than a three-
episode arc, which had real depth of emotion and was a sweet portrayal of true love. It was unapologetic,
treated the same as any other relationship on the show and never hyped for ratings. The creators even
worked around the network censorship of physical intimacy by giving us much subtext, lingering looks,
off-screen allusions and spell casting as sex metaphor. The chemistry between the two actresses carried
through the scripting to create a portrayal of love that was almost palpable. The half-smiles from across
the table, the constant hand touching, the spells and finally the passionate kisses and "morning after
moments" all made this relationship the most believable representation of lesbian love on TV.
This depiction was something that had never happened before, something we gay fans
wished for in our "if I ran Hollywood" fantasies but never really expected to happen, because historically
all lesbian relationships in Hollywood end up doomed--any lesbian relationship will always come to a
tragic end, most often with one partner dying, usually right after sex, after which the other partner goes
insane and kills herself and/or others. So ingrained is this negative portrayal that it has been well
documented by film historians as the "dead/evil lesbian cliché," most notably in The Celluloid Closet by
Vito Russo.
So imagine our elation when the Willow/Tara relationship was portrayed as a real
relationship with real love, real problems and genuine affection. Now imagine our feelings of shock,
horror and betrayal when the character of Tara is suddenly killed right after having sex and Willow goes
insane with grief, turning into a murderer bent on world destruction. The cliché plays out as if scripted by
a '50s pulp writer with a "no happy endings" edict. Unlike other clichés on the show that are turned on
end and spun into something powerful, this story became a doomed lesbian relationship that fits squarely
with the portrayal of every other doomed lesbian relationship. Willow isn't the only one wanting
explanations, apologies and vengeance. Disenchanted fans have reacted with talks of boycotts, tuneouts
and merchandise shredding.
Joss Whedon and his writers maintain that the decision to kill
Tara had nothing to do with her sexuality, and was simply a plot device to make Willow evil. From his
point of view, it's true. Buffy has not been afraid to kill key characters (Jenny Calendar, Buffy's mom,
even Buffy herself) and there seem to be no happy endings for any relationship. Every one of them has
ended with broken hearts, death or tragedy. So it shouldn't be surprising that Willow and Tara lasted as
long as they did.
However, because the show treated the two lesbians the same as everyone
else, the relationship transcended the original story to become role models, icons and a powerful
representation of all that can be normal, good, loving and reassuring about gay relationships. Hannigan,
Benson and other creators have all publicly stated they get fan mail from girls thanking them for Willow
and Tara, because it lets them know it's OK to be gay, safe to feel different, and that happiness is an
option. Any psychologist can tell you that having aspects of your own life accurately reflected to you is a
very powerful thing. Apparently Whedon didn't appreciate how powerful.
Nevertheless,
anyone who followed Buffy for more than a year could see the dark plot development around Willow
coming. It was foreshadowed nicely in season three with the appearance of Vampire Willow. Hannigan
turned in such an inspiring portrayal of Willow's dark side that many fans wanted more. So when the
"dark magic" storyline began in season five, it was a logical conclusion that she would go too far and end
up as an evil sorceress. Willow was playing with magic when she should have been respecting it; she
ended up with an abuse/dependency problem that caused Tara to leave her. So after a heartwarming, sex-
filled reunion when Tara's heart is blown out by a stray bullet, it's no surprise she breaks down
emotionally and goes straight for the dark arts in search of some vengeance.
Objectively, the
story is compelling, fraught with high emotion, lots of action, and tragic loss. If Willow were a man, this
would be a classic tale of the lonely hero who steps outside the law to avenge the senseless murder of his
one true love at the hands of a spineless villain, endangering innocents along the way, who is ultimately
faced with the choice of redemption vs. vengeance, often finding a way to balance the two.
If
there is a cliché that is being spun here, it's this one. There is definite power in portraying the death of a
same-sex partner as true tragedy. Often, it is seen somehow less emotionally taxing, because the
relationship was not sanctioned by God, law and society at large. For Willow (and many viewers), Tara's
death is heart wrenching. Vengeance Willow is a raw, wild, creature from the id that expresses the raging
grief of losing a loved one, and the absolute emptiness that follows. This is the Willow that has been
boiling under the surface for the past six years waiting to come out and kick some Scooby Gang ass. The
killing of Tara was an easy catalyst to make it happen. Too easy--with far-reaching consequences that
extend beyond the show's mythology into the very real world of everyday gays and lesbians begging for
honest portrayals, only to be handed a message of misery and unhappiness.
Ultimately, the
story rules all. Every character is subject to plot device and is manipulated accordingly. Tara is used to
build Willow up, then killed to tear Willow down. Good writers find a balance of originality and
conventional storylines coupled with social awareness and great storytelling to create something truly
original. Whedon managed, largely, to do that, but after many public assurances that Tara was going
nowhere and that he would avoid the dead lesbian cliché, the lure of an easy plot device won out, and
extra effort for originality was put on the back burner along with the regard of many fans desperate for an
accurate portrayal of their lives. If there were as numerous and varied representations of the gay
community in the media as there are of straight white men, many of us would not have a problem with the
death-of-Tara storyline. But there were other ways to make Willow evil that would not have fallen into
this dreaded cliché.
So where does this leave us? The magic that was Willow and Tara is gone
forever. Despite my feelings of anger, betrayal and sadness, I am grateful for almost three years of an
honest, beautiful lesbian relationship. I respect Whedon for staying true to his own vision even if I don't
agree with it. I respect him more for pushing the envelope with the networks to open the way for better
portrayals of gay love. I even applaud aspects of this story for sheer audacity and ability to make my jaw
drop at each turn. Part of me is sad that I can't see this story the way Whedon must have intended it,
where all the characters really are treated the same in death and in life.
Because I don't live in
Joss Whedon's world. I live in a world where every day I have to adapt and interpret representations of
love and happiness, because true portrayals are few and far between. A world where the only place I could
get a fairly accurate reflection of my life has now been blown apart by bullets, death, dark magic, despair
and a sadness that will not leave me. I miss Tara, I grieve for Willow and every other person, gay or not,
who lost a friend and a role model to a cheap plot device. I can only hope that the opening Whedon has
created will be used by others to portray a wide variety of gay life until bad lesbian clichés become a thing
of the past.
[> Could we cite sources for these articles, please? -- d'Herblay,
14:50:16 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> Sorry, I cut it out accidently -- Dochawk, 14:56:57
06/06/02 Thu
its from the Sacremento News and Review, which I believe is a gay, lesbian
etc newsaper in Sacremento, CA.
[> Thanks, Dochawk, for posting this. -- Dariel, 16:58:37
06/06/02 Thu
Evolution of Evil in the BuffyVerse from Simple Evil to
Pogo, Part One (longish) -- LittleBit, 17:45:22 06/06/02 Thu
Evolution of
Evil in the BuffyVerse from Simple Evil to Pogo, Part One
[Preface: to avoid
misunderstanding of the terms as I am choosing to use them, the Big Bad is the one who drives the season
an the story arc; little bads are anyone/anything else, regardless of their degree of
'badness'.]
Season 1: Evil was as evil should be.
The BIG
BAD
In season 1 the Big Bad was the Master. A vampyre (archaic spelling a nod to his
longevity). He had
been around long enough and steeped in evil so thoroughly that his appearance
had begun to take on an animalistic character. Only his imprisonment in the 'mouth' of the Hellmouth had
prevented him from wreaking personal havoc in recent times. There are prophecies specific to him. The
Harvest is to be his harbinger and his emancipation. If it is successful, the old ones (demons) will rule
once more, and Hell itself will come to town (Boca del Infierno, the Hellmouth). The Master, the "vampire
king" who leads the Order of Aurelius, remains in the background (behind the barrier of mystic energy)
for a good part of the season. Giles continued to research even though the Harvest was averted. The
Pergamum Codex is found and reveals the Prophecy of the Slayer's death. The Prophecy is played out:
Anointed One, Master rising, Slayer Death and all. But modern medical knowledge changes the outcome.
The Slayer's death is reversed, and the Master is defeated, slain.
There are little bads of
differing types, thus providing Giles with his veritable cornucopia.
VAMPIRE
Luke, who is almost too strong for the Slayer, and as the Vessel is only defeated by trickery,
is the Master's right hand man. He is selected by the Master to act as his Vessel during the night of the
Harvest. Luke is less drawn to the desires of the vampire, or is at least better able to submerge them in
deference to his Master.
Darla, who was sired by the Master himself and who sired Angel,
attempts to turn Angel from his path of redemption. Darla is the Master's favorite, she flirts with him, is
forgiven for giving in to her nature where others are not. She brings a twist to the vampire-slayer fight as
one of the very few vampires who brings a gun to a stake fight.
Colin the Anointed One,
the Master's current protégé, who is part of the prophecy. He sits at the Master's right side and seems to be
as callously evil as the master. He served little overt purpose in this season except to bolster the Master's
ego. His part in the prophecy was to show the Slayer the way to the Master.
The Three are
the warriors of the Master, his fiercest fighters. While they are quite strong, and very good at annihilating
their targets, they fail to kill the Slayer, partly because of the intervention of Angel. As a result, they offer
their lives, and the Master accepts this penance. It does lead to the question of whether The Three had
never failed before, or if becoming one of the Master's three warriors was something other vampires could
aspire to.
MONSTER
Natalie French, the she-mantis, brought us a
different kind of monster. One known to Giles (or is at least recognized by him); one who preys on the
innocent and untouched, the Kleptes-virgo. She is a predator who seeks a very specific prey in order to
perpetuate her species. The degree to which her victims feel violated can be seen in Xander's destruction
of the egg sacs. In this episode we actually see Buffy out-book-learn Giles by finding a method to disrupt
the mantis' nervous system enough to defeat it, because while she is a monstrous one, she is still a
mantis.
The Tentacled Three-Headed Hellmouth Beast is the first hint of the potential
invasion of evil to come from an open Hellmouth. The Master has opened the way, and encourages it to
come into the world. This particular monster is definitely of the see-kill-eat variety. Only the 'death' of the
Master returns it whence it came.
DEMON
Moloch the Corrupter was
frightening for the reach he was able to achieve and the influence he was able to wield. He is able to
seduce not only students that are portrayed as a touch odd, but our Willow as well. It is not clear how
broad a swathe his influence and corruption covered, but it was at least enough to start operations at the
abandoned factory. Willow, who describes herself as making a few vowel sounds and then having to go
away, can be witty and articulate on-line. And appreciated. Moloch is able to gain his following by
providing that approval which is most desired.
The 7-year Demon brought us not only Sid,
the former demon-hunter now puppet, but also Oedipus Rex (possibly the worst performance in two plus
millennia), and also came very close to eliminating Giles. It also brought the evil directly into Sunnydale
High. Marc was a student there, who may have housed the demon for the past seven years. The other
students knew him. It is not clear what his personality was like, but no one was pointing the weirdness
finger at him.
POSSESSION
The hyena-possession gave us another
level of the evil that pervades the Hellmouth. A predatory group of Sunnydale High students are possessed
by the spirits of predatory animals, hyenas. The group are terrorizing another student, thus performing a
predatory act and Xander stops them, another act. This episode was an eye-opener for Xander's potential -
the pack looked to him as their leader, and he performed well in that role. The other times when Xander
showed true leadership qualities were when he was at the most primitive or animalistic - in his (at least
three) turns as military guy; he was able to devise and carry out efficient and effective plans. At the same
time, we get our first look at the potential darkness that the wise-cracking Xander
harbors.
ALTERED REALITY
The Nightmare World brought on by
Billy Palmer's coma encompasses all of Sunnydale; every inhabitant is seeing their dreams come true in
the most literal sense. I am reminded of C.S. Lewis' Voyage of the Dawn Treader when they are
offshore of the Dark Island where dreams come true - not the little daydreams with wants or desires, but
real dreams, each faces what they fear most. In Sunnydale, however, the nightmares aren't confined to the
'dreamer' but are experienced collectively. Each is able to experience the others' nightmare worlds; in
some cases the nightmares merge (Buffy being vamped, Giles losing her). Quite often these fears will
manifest as finding ourselves in a situation where we believe we have no control or are at fault. It
is this belief that gives the fears power. Once the belief is challenged, the power can be shattered and we
are back in control again. It is interesting that the nightmares seem confined to the human populace, and
not the demons (although perhaps a demon's nightmare would be a human's fondest daydream.)
HUMAN
Catherine Madison introduced witchcraft into the show and
gave Buffy and Giles their first hint that evil wasn't limited to the non-human segment of the Sunnydale
population. She worked her magic for very selfish purposes, not caring about the harm she was causing in
the wake of her spells. We were shown the potential for the backfire of profligate use of magic, some
consequences of which were seen in her daughter Amy's casual use of magic for her own
purposes.
The Zookeeper had studied the history of the Primals, and was familiar with the
general workings of the ritual to bring the possession upon himself. However he did not wish to achieve
the more pure animal state that was the objective of the Primal ritual, but desired the power for himself.
Ultimately he was consumed by his desires, most literally.
Fritz and Dave are the
victims of their own impressionability and willingness to be led. Dave is eventually able to refuse to pay
the price Moloch requires for his approval, and then pays the ultimate price for his aspirations, death, as
does Fritz.
The kiddie league coach, who couldn't face the failure of having 'his' team lose
their game, and blames it on an error made by a 12 year old boy. His brutal beating of Billy, putting him
in a coma, resulted in Billy creating his own nightmare Ugly Man, who then traps him in his nightmare,
his coma. The coach is indirectly responsible for all the violence and harm caused during the nightmare
period.
Marcie Ross becomes a non-entity because no one notices her - the ultimate fear of
any adolescent, and many adults - and it drives her to insanity. She seeks vengeance on those whom she
sees as the ones who ignored her, which is potentially understandable, but is also quite willing to do what
she sees as necessary to remove opposition to her revenge: Giles, Willow, Xander and Buffy. The first
three are saved only because Angel just happens to be walking by the door and hears Giles' feeble
knocking; Buffy saves herself and Cordelia.
And on an ongoing basis, Principal Snyder,
bless his three-sizes-too-small heart, who just goes to prove that some evil in life is unavoidable and
unslayable.
The evil faced in season 1 is fairly pure. Black and white, recognizable:
that which looked evil was evil. Vampires, demons, possession, dark magic, vicious humans, insanity.
The vampires faced this season were well-organized and established in Sunnydale. The Order of Aurelius
had a hierarchical structure with the Master at the top. Darla and Luke stand at his side and Colin, as his
protégé, is at his feet. The Three are his warriors; the others his minions. It is the current task of the Order
to free the Master from his imprisonment. What Buffy faces here is straightforward evil. Kill the Master,
destroy the Order. The Hellmouth Beast could be seen partly as a manifestation of the Master's evil. The
Master steps away from his confinement, the beast emerges. The beast is not directly defeated; when the
Master is defeated, the monster is vanquished. Buffy shows that the she is the Chosen One, who fights
vampires, demons, and the forces of darkness. The little bads whose evil involved human frailty
represented and fears issues that are commonly seen (wanting to relive one's successes, validating yourself
through others, desire for power over others, invisible because you aren't seen - well maybe not quite so
literally). These are ultimately dealt with by someone other than Buffy. The coach goes to jail, Marcie will
be 'rehabilitated'. Catherine's fate was self-inflicted. Dave, Fritz and the Zookeeper were destroyed by the
objects of their own ambition. Resolutions for these conflicts are out of her hands. Buffy only dealt Slayer
justice to the non-human threats. Of course, Principal Snyder won't go away, but there's a fly in every tasty
jello square.
Your feedback is welcomed!
[> Woohoo! Wonderful breakdown of S1 evils. More, more! --
Scroll, 18:02:31 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> I'm still not satisfied!! -- Sophie, 18:15:59 06/06/02
Thu
[> Eagerly awaiting -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:13:26 06/06/02
Thu
I am eagerly awaiting your next post, as well as finding out what "pogo" is. You
break the villains down very well, and I can't wait to see what you do with guys like Spike or the gang of
we're-so-lonely-we-wanna-be-vampires people. Write more!
[> [> "We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us" -- Pogo
(Walt Kelly, creator) -- cjl, 21:30:31 06/06/02 Thu
Well done, little bit. I know
where this is going--from the two-dimensional evil in season 1 to the Heart of Darkness within the
Scoobies themselves in season 6. Looking forward to the journey.
[> [> [> Exactly....... ;) -- LittleBit, 11:44:08 06/07/02
Fri
[> Excellent breakdown, LittleBit. Looking forward to Part
Two. -- Ixchel, 20:32:55 06/06/02 Thu
[> Re: Evolution of Evil in the BuffyVerse from Simple Evil to Pogo,
Part One (longish) -- Wizardman, 01:58:15 06/07/02 Fri
Yeah Baby! Can't wait
for S2, and Spike/Dru, Ethan, Der Kindestod, Ampata, Cain, Ford, the Judge, Reptile Boy, and of
course... Angelus. Can't wait...
[> not quite archived yet, and I'm glad b/c now I can say DAMN!
nice job, can't wait for pt. 2. -- yuri, 12:56:15 06/07/02 Fri
Maybe you should
and Rob should talk - your projects are kinda in the same vein. Anyhow, good luck with the later seasons,
because I'm sure they'll get harder, growing grayness and all.
Spike/Willow's Journey: Tara & Drusilla Separation
From Mother Part I (Spoilers to Grave. Long) -- shadowkat, 18:12:22 06/06/02 Thu
Spike & Willow's Journey - Drusilla & Tara Part I: Separation From the
Mother
MAJOR SPOILERS THROUGH GRAVE! (Quotes from Psyche Transcripts. Also
referencing Rufus's post on the Symbolic Use of Tara (4/20/02). Links will be made to Buffy's journey
since she remains the central focus of the show.
Tara and Drusilla are like mirror images of
dark and light. For Willow and Spike respectively, they act as maternal figures, lovers, soothsayers and
spiritual guides.
Tara first appears on the scene as a stuttering shy girl who introduces Willow
to the pleasures of witchcraft and lesbianism. She is Willow's light. Tara who fears the demon more than
the geek, is fairly straightforward with her nervous geeky self. The dark side of her nature she hides, until
she is forced to come to terms with it in Family and realizes its not that bad after all. Up until Family,
Tara believed her ability to practice witchcraft arose from her demonic nature inherited from her mother,
Spike proves that she has no demonic nature and that her father is merely using this "myth" to keep the
women in line. (Family, season 5, Btvs.) After this episode, Tara no longer has any problem with her
identity. Prior to Season 5, in Restless, Tara appears in "guide mode" - spiritually guiding both Buffy and
Willow through their Restless dreams. Again she is portrayed as light - both in costume - usually light
tones in Season 4, blond streaked hair, and even in Season 5 and Six, she feels like a mature, soft,
womanly presence - maternal. (For example - Buffy's ability to tearfully confess her dark secret to Tara,
literally laying her head in Tara's lap as she does so, in Dead Things or Dawn's bonding scene with Tara
in Smashed, where Tara comments on how big a shake she has and whether she's eating right.). Through
Tara - Willow gains self-esteem and feels confidence in her magic and herself, she feels free to unleash
her powers, partly because Tara grounds her, acts as her compass. Tara is the Hindu Jñaana-candraa or
Moon of Wisdom * (Rufus post on Symbolic Use of Tara) - the guiding light of order, life and forgiveness.
As Rufus states -Tara represents love that bridges gender and form, compassion that is equal for all. (For
an example of Tara's use in this manner see Buffy's Dream in Restless, in which costumes are once again
used to show a character's inner self: "Appears opposite Buffy on the dune, walking toward her. She is
dressed in Indian garb, midriff and skirt. Again, preternaturally calm.")
If Tara is the light,
Drusilla is the darkness. The innocent child first driven insane, then turned into a demon. We know poor
Dru was gifted with the sight, which makes her in some respects similar to Tara as a human. In Becoming
Part I - we flashback to a pre-vamped Drusilla in a confessional worrying that her sight makes her evil.
Angelus posing as a priest, informs her that it does. This scene is very similar to Mr. Maclay informing
Tara that she is evil because of her witchcraft. Both men do it for the same reason - as a means of control.
Tara also appears gifted with the sight and like Dru relies on Tarot cards and is seen using them on more
than one occasion. In fact, Willow even tells Tara during one episode that she could be a fortune teller for
the magic shop. Dru is seen using Tarot cards to predict the future in What's My Line Parts I & II.
Drusilla represents chaos, the ripe sexual temptations of the dark. She is Lilith - the vampire queen of
Jewish legend personified. Her costume is either the innocent white virginal nightgown with dark tresses,
a sort of eerie ghostlike visage, reminiscent of Mina of Dracula legend, or black fishnet stockings, fishnet
jacket and black and red sleeveless gowns. She's also razor thin. Compare this to Tara's long blond
tresses and full womanly figure and pastel peasant shirts.
Drusilla turns poor rejected William
into a vampire, because she wants someone who will devote themselves to her, loving her unconditionally
and passionately - this is something she sees at William's core, just as Drusilla's core is her sight. Both
gifts pass to the vampires. And like most gifts, are double-edged, acting as fatal flaws and assets
simultaneously. Drusilla can see into the hearts and minds of people, that is her gift - but it makes her
insane.
Tempting the poor rejected William with a world of beauty and sex and love, Drusilla
provides him with the support and reassurance he currently lacks. Because of Drusilla - William
transforms himself into Spike, "You are my sweet... my little Spike", she calls him like a mother labeling
her child. (School Hard) She teaches him to embrace the darkness, to thrill in it. When he kills his first
slayer - she embraces him fully as a lover, rewarding him for his prowess. (Fool for Love, Season 5 Btvs.)
In School Hard (Season 1, Btvs) - she gently suggests he make nice with the Annoited One who has the
power. "You should go up with them and cleanse The boy doesn't trust you. They follow him." And
finally, in Crush, she tells him that nothing can keep him back from being the "bad dog" he truly is. No
wires or silicon or bits and pieces of science. It's what is inside him that counts. She is his ripe wicked
plum, his dark princess, the god Kali promising him eternal life and love in the return for devoting
himself to her cause: chaos and death.
When we first meet Drusilla, she is a child herself,
weak, with her birds and her broken dolls. Spike treats her as a daughter that he pets and takes care of,
just as Willow takes care of Tara in Seasons 4 and 5, saving her from monsters, and feeding her food.
(They both call their significant others baby or childlike names. Spike even refers to himself as "Daddy"
in Halloween.) In School Hard, we see Spike hunt for Drusilla , bring her food and order her to eat. "I'll
go up and get chanty with the fellas, but *you* (goes to Sheila) got to do me one favor. (takes Sheila off of
the hook) Eat something. (hands Sheila to Drusilla and leaves)". Later, he chides her for worrying over a
bird that is dead, partly out of jealousy and partly out of fear for her safety - after he learns she'd gone out
the night before and met with the ensouled Angel. (Lie To Me, Season 2, Btvs). Drusilla whines when
Spike scolds her just as a momentarily crazy Tara whines when people scold her. (See Tough Love,
Spiral, and The Gift (Season 5 Btvs)). The whining causes Spike to retract his negative comments and pet
Dru soothingly just as Willow soothingly pets and caresses Tara.
It's clear that Spike and
Willow would do anything for Drusilla and Tara. When Buffy threatens Drusilla in Lie To Me - Spike
orders his minions to let an entire basement full of victims free, including the one he holds within his
grasp. This reminds me of Willow and Tara in Tough Love and later in Spiral. In Tough Love, Willow
cuts through the crowd at a fair desperate to save Tara from Glory, a mind-sucking hellgod. When Tara is
hurt - Willow goes after Glory with the darkest of magics. And in the Gift she tells Buffy, Tara must be
her priority. It's fitting that Spike is the one who convinces Buffy in Tough Love that Willow will go after
Glory in vengeance, after all he'd do the same thing - he has done it. For that matter so has Buffy, twice
with Angel - first she endangers herself by going after Spike on Angel's behalf and the second time she
goes after Faith.
*The two people Buffy goes in revenge mode after on behalf of Angel can be
described as Buffy's shadow selves (Spike and Faith) - or the closest she's come to a physical entity
resembling the part of herself she fears most. It's almost as if Buffy's darker half or shadow wishes to
destroy Angel - knowing that in order to pass to the next level in her development, she must first break
from him. Angel can be seen as Buffy's version of Drusilla and Tara - the guide or lover, the nurturer. In
Buffy's case, it's a father figure or yin/psyche version of the guide. During portions of Season 2 and Season
3 - Angel appears in Buffy's dreams acting very much like a spirit guide - similar to the way that Dru and
Tara appear for Spike and Willow either in flashbacks for Spike or literally in Willow's dream. (See
dreams in Surprise, Innocence, Anne, Dead Man's Party, and to some extent the graveyard scene in
Forever - for Buffy and Angel. See Restless, Family, for Willow and Fool for Love for Spike.) Angel acts
like a father, taking Buffy out ice-skating, comforting her when she's afraid, protecting her. (What's My
Line Part I.) In Forever, after joyce's death, it is Angel who appears at Joyce's grave to comfort Buffy, not
her father. Saying all the things one would expect a father to say. (Forever Season 5, Btvs) But we all need
to separate from this parental figure - to get to the next level. And this is the hardest one to break -
because we feel safe with him or her, they make us feel whole and comforted. We can remain children. In
Myth, moving past the parental figure, required a ritual killing or breakage - metaphorically killing the
father or mother, the child is forced to survive on its own. In some Native American and tribal traditions -
the child would ritualistically combat the parent then go off on a vision quest.
In Btvs - Buffy's
shadow self attempts to kill Angel first, but Buffy saves him. (What's My Line Part II -Buffy's shadow self,
Spike, attempts to kill Angel to save Spike's nurturer and first love, Dru, who in turn was Angelus' childe,
who requires Angelus' (Dru's first love's) death to break free of her weakened state and become strong.)
The shadow self, (Spike), tries a second time, with Buffy's consent, to kill Angelus - but to truly break
free - Buffy must do it herself & she must metaphorically kill both Angel (soulful kind father) & Angelus
(cruel/Freudian father figure) hence the reemergence of Angel's soul just as she's about to slice off
Angelus' head. In Becoming Part II, she kisses him then drives a sword through his heart, sending both
Angel & Angelus to hell, symbolically severing his control over her so she can be free to start the next
stage of her journey. Grief-stricken - she goes off on a vision quest of sorts, journeys to hell and remerges
reborn. (See ANN season 3 Btvs).
Stronger now - she resists making the same mistakes with
Angel in Season 3, and literally switches roles with him - instead of Angel protecting Buffy, Buffy
protects and heals Angel with her forgiveness, she becomes the adult and he the child. But their bond is
not completely broken until the shadow selves, now two of them - one yin and the other yang - remerge
and place their cuts on the umbilical chord, leaving the final cut to Buffy herself. First Spike (yang) - cuts
the chord, forcing Buffy to acknowledge and be receptive to the dangerous emotions she and Angel feel
for one another. "Oh - right, just friends no danger there," he tells her sardonically. She alludes to his
advice when she tells Angel she cannot stay in a comfortable friendship with him: "I can lie to Giles, I can
lie to my friends, I can lie to you, but I can't lie to myself or Spike for some reason " (Lover's Walk,
Season 3 Btvs.) Spike also, inadvertently, makes Buffy's mother (yang) - the one person who has the
ability to get through to Angel, aware of the relationship. That's the first cut - the emotional one. The
second cut is through Faith who represents yin, the psyche. It is through Faith that Buffy is reminded of
Angelus and it is through Faith that the Mayor (town father/authority figure - dark yin) reminds Angel
and Buffy of the logical reasons they can't be together. Spike made them aware of the fact they can't just
be friends - love exists between them, they can't just ignore it. Faith makes them aware that there are
logical and realistic reasons why they can't be lovers. Buffy, still unable to break off with Angel,
metaphorically forces her counterpart or shadow, Faith, to do so. Faith fatally injures Angel, thus forcing
Buffy to make a decision - she must either sacrifice her life or her soul to save him : Buffy's soul by killing
Faith and giving her to Angel as a blood sacrifice, the sacrifice of the shadow self would metaphorically
bond Buffy to darkness - luckily Faith escaped this fate. Instead Buffy must risk her own life and forces
Angel to drain her. By forcing Angel to drink from her to save himself - Buffy severs the chord. Angel
finally realizes why they can't be together - their paths are separate, he will be her destruction. With him,
she will remain stunted, the adolescent girl.
For Buffy - the first break must be with a yin
figure: here the father, which is fitting because most of Buffy's strength and power comes from yin. Her
absentee father - has caused her to take on this role, but she resists it - wishing to find a replacement
father so that she can remain in adolescence, a child. Both Angel and Riley represent father figures. The
protective male or yin, Buffy must break free of - in order to move onto to the first stage of adulthood and
fend for herself. For Buffy - who is yin, animus, or the reactive instead of receptive, she requires balance
in yang. But to reach yang - she had to first conquer the yin - the need for the protective father figure - as
represented by Angel, Riley and to some degree Giles. All three leave for their own well being as well as
hers. For they also require balance. She fights their leave-taking but when they return, albeit briefly, she
recognizes it as being a good thing and thanks them for it. For they have all grown because of it. (See
Yoko Factor (where she thanks Angel for leaving) AYW(forgives Riley) and finally Grave (forgives and
thanks Giles) for specifics.)
During this period- Xander is the non-sexual confident, the brother
figure as opposed to the father figure - hence her inability to be sexually attracted to him - Buffy wants a
father-figure not a brother. Xander aids her in her fights without physical backup or sexual need. He does
not act like her father, so much as a mirror- the calm voice of reason/her heart. He is Pancho to her Don
Quixote. Xander is the confidant and the friend, to bring romance or sex into it would as Buffy long ago
put it - destroy the friendship that has become so vital to her. (Prophecy Girl, Season 1 Btvs.) In some
ways their friendship is more lasting and more beautiful than a romantic liaison could ever be. It's
important that he never be sexually involved with her - because then she would be unable to heed his
advice or understand it. It would be colored by emotion. Unlike Angel and Riley - Xander acts as Buffy's
conscience -yin personified. Metaphorically - if they were linked romantically - these two would remain
forever unbalanced = two yins and it would stop their mutual journeys to enlightenment. (For this reason -
it would be a mistake to put Willow and Spike together. And for the same reasons it's a mistake to put
Xander with Buffy, it would be a mistake to put Willow with Buffy - because Willow serves as Buffy's
sister self or the mirror to her yang, showing her the positive and negatives of emotional or receptive
responses.) Xander in many ways is more important than Angel - because Xander shows Buffy what she
can do without the super-strength, he represents her psyche. Another way of putting it is that he operates
as a mirror - showing her what happens when yin is in balance and out of balance - see Xander's mistakes
in season 3, his jealousy of Angel, his romantic escapades in Season 1-2, and his tendency to see the world
in black and white and to be very judgmental. Or the positive aspects - when he talks Willow down in
Grave or persuades Angel to help Buffy in Prophecy Girl.
(To be continued in Part II
below decided to split it on the ATP Board because it is so long and complex and I'm a feedback
whore!) ; ) shadowkat
[> Spike/Willow's Journey: Tara & Drusilla Separation From Mother
Part II (Spoilers to Grave. Long) -- shadowkat,
18:17:10 06/06/02 Thu
Part II of Separation of the Mother - Tara and Drusilla (Major
Spoilers to Grave!!)Quotes from Psyche Transcripts.
When Willow's relationship starts with
Tara, Willow is the protector, the mother figure and Tara the child. Tara is shy, stutters, and feels outside
the group. Willow slowly brings her into it. When Tara's family threatens to take her away, Willow steps
in followed by her friends to protect Tara from her father. (FAMILY, Season 5 Btvs.) Spike and Dru's
relationship is introduced in the same fashion as Willow and Tara's - to the extent that some viewers
found it impossible to see Dru as Spike's sire or mother, it appeared to be the other way around. In School
Hard, Spike handles Dru as if she were a piece of porcelain about to break. She talks like a child in a little
girl's voice about dolls and flowers and little birds: "The camera pans from her bed past her TV and lamp
and over to her collection of dolls. She lifts one and turns it to face away. Drusilla: Miss Edith speaks out
of turn. She's a bad example, and will have no cakes today. Shhhh." (See School Hard, Season 2, Btvs.)
Then things change. After restoring Drusilla to her full power, Spike becomes incapacitated,
constrained by a wheelchair. Buffy knocked him into a pipe organ which fell on his head, paralyzing him
from the waist down for about six months. (See What's My Line Part II, Season 2 Btvs.) When we next see
Drusilla and Spike, Drusilla is Mommy and Spike is her child. She is taking care of him. She's the
boss.(Surprise) And once Angelus returns - it is indicated that Drusilla not only feeds Spike but also
bathes him. ( See Passion, Bewitched, Bothered & Bewildered and I Only Have Eyes for You, Season 2
Btvs.) When Spike turns against Drusilla and Angelus - Drusilla scolds him and eventually dumps him
like the unruly rebellious child he has become. As Spike states in Lover's Walk: "Dru said I'd gone soft.
Wasn't demon enough for the likes of her. And I told her it didn't mean anything, I was thinking of her
the whole time, but she didn't care." (Becoming Part II, Season 2 Btvs. Lover's Walk Season 3, Btvs. and
flashbacks in Fool For Love, Season 5 Btvs.)
Tara similarly becomes the adult figure in the
Willow/Tara relationship. She scolds Willow on her use of too much magic. Threatening to leave after
Willow uses spells on her.
TARA: (tearfully) I don't think this is gonna
work.
WILLOW: Hey. It is, i-it's working. (Tara just looks at her, looks down) Tara, please. I need
you, baby. I need you. I don't need magic, I-I don't, I ... let me prove it to you, okay? I, I will go a month
without doing any magic. I won't do a single spell. I swear.
TARA: Go a week. One week without
magic. (Tabula Rasa, season 6, Btvs.)
Eventually Tara does leave and when Buffy asks to see
her, Tara frets like a worried parent that Willow's magic has harmed someone. (Dead Things, Season 6,
Btvs.)
Tara and Drusilla do give their lovers a second chance. Drusilla returns in Season 5,
Crush, and tells Spike he can join her again. They can play and feed just like old times. The chip, she tells
him, means nothing. For awhile he follows her lead- goes to the Bronze, feeds on a girl that she kills for
him, punches out Harmony, and allows Drusilla to use a cattle prod on Buffy. But seeing Buffy in pain is
too much for him - he just can't do it and rebels. Conflicted - he ties up his mother/lover (Drusilla) - the
woman that helped form the monster he is, beside his shadow self (Buffy), the girl he is falling for, the
slayer. It is an interesting dilemma. Who do you choose? The Mother? Or The Shadow? (Sort of similar to
Willow's choice regarding Tara and OZ- Willow of course chooses Tara, the mother as opposed to OZ (the
father?).) On its face, Spike's choice appears to be simple since Buffy clearly wants nothing to do with
him. Yet, Spike does the unthinkable - he saves Buffy from Drusilla. The first link in the chain that bound
him to Dru was cut when he joined with Buffy to defeat Angelus - the second is severed when he saves
Buffy from Drusilla. Drusilla realizing he is beyond her grasp, retreats into the shadows muttering that
not even she can help him now. Harmony - his replacement for Drusilla and a psuedo-Buffy clone, blond
with the ability to fit into Buffy's clothes and dim enough to pretend to be Buffy in their sex games - also
leaves. (She's later replaced with the far more malleable Buffbot.) By making the choice to save Buffy -
Spike has cut himself off from the safe known world of the mother. Unlike Willow's choice of Tara over
OZ - Spike's reaps no rewards, he doesn't get Buffy as a result of his actions, if anything his actions,
demonic in nature - chaining her up and forcing her to listen to his confession of love, exile him further
from her affections. (Ironic - since Dru would probably would have rewarded him for this treatment.)
*Odd, Spike loses Dru, his creator and mother figure by choice an episode before Buffy loses
her real biological mother, Joyce, (at the end of I Was Made To Love You.) Willow, by contrast, has no
clue what it is like to lose a nurturing mother figure (see Tough Love), while Tara lost her mother at 17
and was forced to handle the job of raising her brothers. (The Body, Season 5, Btvs.) Both Buffy and Tara
- deal with the literal loss of their biological mother, while Willow and Spike deal with the metaphorical
loss of the surrogate mother as Buffy dealt with the metaphorical loss of her surrogate father via Angel.
Tara chooses to part from her father - similar to Spike who chooses to part from Dru when she returns for
him, just as Willow chooses to part from Oz when he returns for her. Both Spike and Willow have moved
on, Spike from the mother figure (yang) and Willow from the father figure (yin). But Tara like Buffy
literally loses her mother in death. Perhaps as a result of her literal and figurative acceptance of both
parents loss - Tara ascends to a higher level - incorporating both yin and yang in her being, leaping
beyond the need for gender definitions or dependency on others to format or define herself. Drusilla on
the other hand, remains unbalanced and chaotic. She refuses to let the sick human, Darla, die, and instead
forces her to remain, by vamping her, turning her back into the vampire mother she remembers, and then
with Darla's help seeks to turn Angel, back into the demon father that once tortured her. Drusilla unlike
Tara has not accepted the loss of her parents, she attempts to recreate them. This causes Drusilla to
remain arrested in adolescence. (See Crush and Ats Season 2 for specifics. )
When Tara
returns - Willow takes her back. Willow unlike Spike, works to regain her mother/lover's affection.
(Remember Willow has a strained relationship with her biological mother (Gingerbread), just as Buffy has
with her father - so like Buffy does with Angel and Riley, Willow finds comfort and love with Tara. Both
women attempt to hold on to these relationships. Spike - well, we really don't know what William's
relationships were like with his biological parents. From the limited information we're given - we can
assume he had a good one with his mother but does it matter? When he becomes a vampire - he forms
new relationships and is forever cut off from the human ones, so in a sense Drusilla does meet his need
just as Tara might for Willow.) Willow completes several tasks to accomplish Tara's return: 1. She goes
cold turkey - cleans herself of all magic supplies. 2. She saves Buffy three times without the use of magic.
(See Gone, DoubleMeat Palace and Normal Again for specifics.) 3. She cuts off her friendship with Amy,
who is addicted to magic. And finally in Entropy- Tara, seeing all the work Willow has done, returns to
her in Willow's bedroom, their safe haven where the world cannot interfere. The same haven where
Willow violated her by removing her memory of a fight in All The Way. Thus Willow appears to reap the
necessary reward for successfully completing her tasks.
So why kill Tara? Why is Willow
denied the comfort of Tara's love? Well, let's ask the question another way - why is Angel killed at the end
of Season 2 and why does he leave in Season 3? And why must Spike cut the chord that binds him to Dru?
And why must Spike leave Buffy? Buffy says it best in I Was Made To Love You - she tells Xander, that
you shouldn't change yourself and your life, so it is only about one person. You should do these things for
yourself. Willow, like Spike and Buffy, must complete these tasks for herself not for the reward of Tara's
love. To break out of her childhood, she must break free of the mother (Tara). Up to this point -
everything Willow has done has been for someone else's approval. First, she gets good grades for her
parents. Then she delves into magic - to get acceptance from the SG and to rebel against her mother,
Sheila.
Willow: (stands up) No, Ma, hear this! I'm a rebel! I'm having a
rebellion!
Sheila: (smiling) Willow, honey, you don't need to act out like this to prove your
specialness. (Gingerbread, Season 3, btvs.)
Willow needs to learn that she is special without
someone else telling her she is. She has to learn how to love herself and how to complete tasks for her
own personal development not in order to gain acceptance or love from someone else. She is depending on
Tara to provide her with self-esteem, to provide her with a compass or a goal.
Willow believes
she is a loser, mousey, the one always picked on in College and high school. As DarkWillow tells Buffy:
"Let me tell you something about Willow: she's a loser. And she always has been. Everyone picked on
Willow in junior high, high school, up until college with her stupid mousy ways and now - Willow's a
junkie. the only thing going for me -were those moments - just moments - when Tara would look at me
and I was wonderful. And that will never happen again. " (Two to Go, Season 6 Btvs.). And Tara, being
the compassionate loving soul that she is, is unable to break the chord that binds her to Willow. Only
Willow can break it and Willow doesn't know how. So it is broken tragically by an outside force - forcing
Willow to choose her path on her own without Tara or anyone else to tell her what to do.
Spike has had to do this twice now. First with Drusilla. Now with Buffy. And both times it
happens in a private safe haven. The first time in the privacy of his crypt, the inner sanctum where he
keeps all his valuables. The second time in Buffy's private domain, her bath, a place he may have been
welcomed before. But unlike Tara, Buffy is not in love with Spike; and Spike of course is not Willow.
Spike is a demon who prior to his relationship with Buffy was evil. Drusilla leaves Spike, because Spike
has moved towards good, he is no longer evil enough for her, he has become gray. (Because he tried to
save the world to save her. His capacity for love worked against her primal code for evil. Becoming Part
II) Drusilla did not have to die for this break to happen, because Spike was able to cut the chord himself.
He replaced Drusilla in his heart with Buffy. (Crush.) Now instead of trying to please Dru - Spike is trying
to please Buffy. The tasks he completes are for Buffy's benefit. Here are his tasks: 1. Starts helping her,
saves her life, saves her friends, protects her mother and sister. 2. Undergoes torture at Glory's hands. 3.
Sacrifices himself for Buffy and Dawn in Spiral and The Gift. Although on the surface it appears the
completion of these tasks have earned him Buffy's love - they haven't, not really. As verandathe so aptly
put it in a post on vampirism - no matter how hard Spike tries to please Buffy by doing good deeds - as a
demon without a soul - he is doomed to failure. (reply to Malandaz's & Masq's vampirism posts on ATP
board, 6/4/02). With Dru, Spike had a chance - he could do evil deeds to please her - that was his natural
inclination. Buffy requires him to go against his natural impulses. So Spike hasn't really changed. Any
more than Willow really has. You can't just complete a bunch of tasks to earn back someone's love, you
have to complete the tasks for yourself. You have to change for yourself. Otherwise, your lover has no way
of knowing that you won't make the same mistakes all over again. To realize this - both Spike and Willow
had to break from the people who are their compasses. Spike first broke with his dark compass = Drusilla
(evil yang) this makes it possible for him to choose to do evil for himself not just to impress her, (which he
attempts to do, with unproductive results in Harsh Light of Day (Btvs Season 4), In the Dark (Ats Season
1), The Initiative & Yoko Factor (Season 4, Btvs. ) ) Now he has to break with the light one = Buffy (good
yin), so he can make the choice to do good on his own. Spike's break with Drusilla was similar to Willow's
with OZ - neither required a death. Both Dru and OZ voluntarily left Spike and Willow and when they
returned, Spike and Willow had moved on. Spike and Willow's breaks with Buffy and Tara are far more
traumatic, partly because the break occurs with a death. Buffy and Tara don't leave them. Even after the
AR scene - Buffy appears on Spike's doorstep. He's the one who has to leave. Just as Tara ends up
returning to Willow. This may be the reason that Tara is shot.
Been thinking about this, and
finally it came to me why Tara was shot in Willow's bedroom, it's actually for the same reason that the AR
scene occurs in Buffy's bathroom: Think about it - the safest and most comforting part of Willow's world,
our world is our bedroom. It has to be, it's where we sleep, where we boink, where we decompress. To
have Tara ripped from Willow in a place of such utter and complete safety heightens the trauma. Compare
this to Spike losing Buffy by his own actions in the privacy of her bath, also womblike and safe. A place
he cannot imagine hurting her. He's no doubt been there before. The fact he does so, shocks him to his
core - causing him to leave in order to change himself. Or how about Buffy losing Joyce in the privacy and
safety of her living room? To lose the person who nurtures your ego, who makes you feel whole in the
place where you were not only just recently reunited with them but also share your most intimate self with
them - is a traumatic break that metaphorically works on a psychological and emotional level. Willow has
lost her mother and sole nurturer in her home. Just as Buffy loses her mother in her home. Extend the
metaphor further - Buffy is shot from the same gun that shot Tara, Tara has become a pseudo surrogate
mother to both Buffy and Dawn - now where is Tara shot? Willow's room? Think again. Joyce's old room!
So, Willow, Buffy and Dawn have had the mother, Tara - the perfect balance of yin/yang, ripped from
them in Buffy &Dawn's biological and Willow's surrogate mother, Joyce's, old room, the safest place in
their home by an intrusive and manmade bullet! Is it any wonder, Willow erupts with rage the way she
does? And through her eruption - Willow is reborn. Just as by leaving - Spike is reborn. And to further
link this to Buffy - by being forced to remerge from the grave (read Joyce's, Tara's or Buffy's), Dawn and
Buffy are reborn.
To pass through fire and be reborn, Willow and Spike had to break with the
mother. Spike does it first, breaking with Drusilla by choice. This break is less traumatic, because it
happened over time and did not require a death. Willow's break is more traumatic for Willow and the rest
of the characters - because Tara didn't just represent Willow's mother, she was also a surrogate for Dawn
and to a lesser degree Buffy. So her death symbolically frees three characters. The mother has to
symbolically die in order for Willow, Dawn & Buffy to walk through the fire and be reborn. Just as
Drusilla had to leave for Spike to start to grow. Later Buffy's death (in the Gift and the violent separation
in AR scene, she's shot not long after that in Seeing Red)- causes a second break for Spike, allowing him
to choose to walk through the fire and be reborn. To pass into adulthood, each character had to lose the
mother, whether she be the dark temptress Drusilla or the lady of light, balanced yin/yang, Tara. Dealing
with her separation is the first step on the road to adulthood. Just as leaving home and setting out on our
own is ours.
Thanks for reading! Hope it made sense - I got ambitious. Feedback please!!
; - ) shadowkat
[> [> Wonderful!! as always!...brain now needs synthesis
time! -- LittleBit, 19:51:31 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> worshiping at the altar of 'kat's genius - AGAIN --
Kitt, 20:01:55 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> BRILLIANT! Thanks for another great read! -- Exegy
*wishing for that type of ambition*, 20:59:43 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> Some quibbles -- Caroline, 09:01:10 06/07/02
Fri
I agree with the thesis you set out here - that Tara and Drusilla are, respectively, are
the light and dark projections of needs by Willow and Tara respectively. And, that in the maturation
process, one must separate from the parent (or one's internalization of the parents) to fully integrate one's
identity. But, I'm having problems following your argument for the thesis.
There's too many
shadows running around. Everyone appears to be a shadow for everyone else. I'll give one example, in
season 2, I don't think that one can say that Spike is Buffy's shadow because we don't have any evidence
that he was caught up in her unconscious processes until seasons 4 and 5. But, Faith is clearly a good
example of Buffy's shadow because we know that Buffy has strong feelings about Faith - initially positive,
then negative - related to how Buffy feels about her own role as a slayer and the potential pitfalls that role
opens for her. I would argue that we should only classify someone as a shadow figure if they are strongly
associated with an unconscious complex, otherwise it devalues the use of the term
psychologically.
I'm really confused with your definitions of yin and yang. You've referred to
male characters and fathers as yin and female characters and mothers as yang, when it should be the other
way around. "Both Angel and Riley represent father figures. The protective male or yin (?), Buffy must
break free of in order to move onto the first stages of adulthood and fend for herself". Now I understand
that each being has both elements in them but usually one of these poles is identified with more strongly.
But you need to make clear why you are categorizing a female character as yang, not yin, and vice versa.
You assert that Buffy is "yin, animus, or the reactive instead of the receptive". This is highly confusing.
Yin is reactive AND receptive, yang is active and initiating. And, if Buffy is being classified as yin, how
can she also be animus, which is the male component of female psychology? And in the quote above, you
say the protective male is yiin and Buffy must break free of it but now you say that she is yin. My brain is
very confused. I have no doubt that Buffy contains both yin and yang elements but you need to be clearer
in your uses of the terms, particularly when you are categorizing someone as exclusively yin or a mixture
of yin and yang.
You complicate this further by using the terms dark yin and evil yang. Am I
correct in interpreting this to mean a negative manifestation of the principle?
Furthermore,
the goddess Kali is not just the bringer of destruction, she is also the creator. She manifests both the
positive and negative aspects of the yin or feminine principle. She creates life and destroys it. One of the
functions of the goddess Kali in one version of the tale was to destroy demons who walked the earth - in
that sense, it's kind of weird that you would pair her to Drusilla who specializes in creating demons.
I have more concerns but need to get back to work, so I'll try to find time to commit them to
the page later.
[> [> [> I also wondered about the use of yin and yang, but
... -- Exegy, 10:18:09 06/07/02 Fri
shadowkat's essay was so involving that I
discounted any of the possible discrepancies. Some could have been unintentional errors (resulting from a
typo). I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt for such a fab post.
However, I agree that it
would be nice if shadowkat explained more of the yin and yang. (S)he's obviously working with personally
established definitions of the terms; having written a lot of essays, (s)he's probably taking for granted that
the reader will be able to follow along. Well, some difficulties arise when one doesn't pause to explain
working definitions, and this seems to be the case here.
I agree that certain
overgeneralizations have been made (your example of the shadow figure, for instance). But I don't fault
'kat for drawing such conclusions. I think it's acceptable as long as one makes relevant connections among
the characters (and 'kat did). I guess I'm a forgiving sort.
I totally agree about Kali, though. To
ignore the goddess' regenerative aspect entirely is to miss the point. But the figure's use can still be
justified (sometimes one ignores certain aspects in order to make one's own point).
I'm sorry if
I have spoken in shadowkat's defense and failed miserably. Only (s)he can explain intent in the end.
PS. Please voice your other concerns, Caroline. Your points are valid and should be addressed
by the author of the text.
PPS. I did have a quibble of my own: was Drusilla driven mad by her
ability to "see" or was she driven mad by Angelus? I thought the latter, but 'kat thought the former.
[> [> [> [> Re: I also wondered about the use of yin and
yang, but ... -- shadowkat, 12:23:24 06/07/02 Fri
First this was my riskiest post
to date - because I decided to dabble in something way way above my head - eastern concepts and
psychology. (May have been a bad move...)Stupid I know, but oh well. (Be kind - very hard week, big time
job interview, and my fiction book got rejected...so feeling a tad vulnerable here.) If the essay doesn't work
it won't go on my website, it dies here, never to raise it's ugly head again. If it can be salvaged let me
know..
Perhaps I'm confused about the use of yin and yang...from other posts and things
I've read: yang = receptive (felt
female to me, earth, emotional)
and yin=reactive (male, sun,
thought). If I'm wrong or confused the two- apologize and will switch them.
Here's my take on
it, (now I'm not an expert, or have I ever studied this stuff in depth - so if you are feel free to
correct.)
Yin - I was using this for what father figure
(which can be male or female -
example Buffy is more of a father figure in some respects to Dawn)is. The psyche
or thought, logic,
the nonemotional, Buffy in many ways
acts like this. She initiates action. She fights. Willow is the
opposite, she is receptive, she takes it into herself
most of the time.
Yang - I was using
this for what a mother figure is (which can be female or male as well - I think Spike represents
this
most to me.) The emotion. Receptive. Takes emotion
in. The definitions I was using came from
redcat's post on yin and yang I read on witchcraft. I was trying not to use gender terms since these appear
to offend people.
Kali - don't know a great deal about this god. But from my limited
knowledge she creates through destruction. The cult
of Kali was into death and disemberment
according to the myths that I read - so I was using her metaphorically. Again did not mean to offend.
Drusilla also creates through destruction - creation of vampires. but if it doesn't work..okay, easy to delete
- wasn't a point of the thesis.
Morale - I should have used another word instead of yin
and
yang. (Never write about something you aren't an expert on)
Finally - I think Spike
can be used as a shadow in Season 2 and 3 - Caroline believes he can't because he's not
around
enough. Don't think that's true. And you can have more than one shadow. Buffy as more than
poster has theorized has had Faith and Spike, some believe one or the other, some both.
So I have a
question - if Faith returned would she cease to be used in this manner? Maybe. Personally I see a
psychological link between Spike and Buffy in Lover's Walk
just as I saw one between her and Spike
in Season 2 - where they lost their lover's to each other.
(I'm pretty sure only Spike and Faith are
used as Buffy's shadows.)
Thanks again for reading. Really sorry for giving offense
or
causing any confusion. Thanks for the help Exegy...!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I also wondered about the use of yin
and yang, but ... -- Caroline, 12:52:46 06/07/02 Fri
You really didn't give offense
shadowkat. I just happen to be steeped in Jungian psychoanalytics as well as mythology and Eastern
energy theory.
First of all, the definitions of yin and yang you use are the opposite of the
definitions you've given in this post. Yin is the feminine principle, yang is the masculine. There's a really
good book called Between Heaven and Earth by Harriet Bienfield that has a good, clear intro into Chinese
energy theory. Or, you can pick up any good acupuncture or shiatsu text - it will do the same.
Yang is active, it initiates. Yin is receptive and reactive (not passive - definitely agree with
redcat on this!). Yang is associated with the logical and rational, yin with the feelings, intuitions and
emotions. The psyche contains all of these, so is neither strictly yin or yang.
The shadow is a
somewhat slippery concept but the use you are putting it to is even more slippery. I would still argue to
save the analytic power of the concept that we reserve it for use in situations when there are powerful
unconscious drives in operation, which I argue were not operating between Buffy and Spike in season 2.
That came later. (And I don't argue that it's because Spike is not around enough). There may be a link
between Buffy and Spike in season 2 - so many people love to read a huge amount of stuff into their first
encounter in School Hard - but I would argue that Buffy's feelings, conscious and unconscious, towards
Spike is season 2 were about the same as her feelings to any other bad guy. Buffy was not projecting her
shadow onto him and Spike definitely was not projecting his shadow (or light) onto her.
Yes,
you can have more than one shadow. If Faith returned, she may or may not be Buffy's shadow - it would
depend on whether Buffy has come to terms with the issues inside herself that caused the projection in the
first place. If she has, then the projections no longer exist. Faith may then be used as a FOIL for Buffy,
according to the needs of the plot, but whether she is a shadow as well depends on the state of Buffy's
psyche. There's a difference between seeing a character as a foil and acknowledging them as bearing the
projection of one's shadow. That's why I don't think season 2 Spike is Buffy's shadow, as he became
later.
[> [> [> [> [> [> And.... -- Caroline,
13:16:22 06/07/02 Fri
I don't mean for my criticism to prevent you from publishing
this paper elsewhere. I would hope that you take the criticism in the constructive sense that I give it and
use it to make the changes you deem appropriate. I feel that I should say that you have great ideas and
energy. I just get confused by your sometimes imprecise use of certain terms and concepts, which is why I
often do not respond to your posts.
[> [> [> [> [> Switch yin and yang, you'll be
alright... -- Scroll, 12:58:13 06/07/02 Fri
Please keep this essay, 'kat. I'm sure
you can clean it up a bit, instead of trashing it. I think yin and yang need to be switched, or at least
clarified better. And I agree with Exegy that Angelus was what drove Drusilla mad, not her visions. I love
your essays, and I love Tara, so you've given me lots to ponder!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I also wondered about the use of yin
and yang, but ... -- redcat, 13:09:58 06/07/02 Fri
shadowkat,
First, I just
want to say that I think you are often brilliantly intuitive about these characters. This post is a real stretch
for you. I think it needs some editing, but I would urge you not to trash it so much as rethink a few things.
I agree with leslie's take on William's relationship with his mother, for example, as this is consistent with
my read of him as typologically neurasthenic. And I sort of agree w/ Caroline that reading Spike as
Buffy's shadow begins to work better for me after Faith leaves.
I do have a question for
you, though, not about the post, but about your response here to Exegy. You write, "The emotion.
Receptive. Takes emotion
in. The definitions I was using came from redcat's post on yin and yang I
read on witchcraft. I was trying not to use gender terms since these appear to offend
people."
It's hard for me to see for sure from the punctuation, but I think you might be saying
that I used yin and yang the way you have in this post. I don't remember doing so, especially since my
own on-going use of those terms, based on my rather eclectic education as a Hawai'i-based pagan, always
codes yang as masculine and yin as feminine, not the other way around. If I did mislead you re: their
traditional references, I apologize, and pleased point me to the post. If you're not refering to me, then I
just want to say that I find your use of yin/yang confusing only because I'm used to seeing them used the
opposite way. I'll go back and read the post now with your explanation above in mind.
Thanks
for doing another amazing job of letting us in on your insights into these characters!!
rc
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I also wondered about the use of
yin and yang, but ... -- shadowkat, 14:17:29 06/07/02 Fri
"I do have a question
for you, though, not about the post, but about your response here to Exegy. You write, "The emotion.
Receptive. Takes emotion
in. The definitions I was using came from redcat's post on yin and yang I
read on witchcraft. I was trying not to use gender terms since these appear to offend
people."
It's hard for me to see for sure from the punctuation, but I think you might be saying
that I used yin and yang the way you have in this post. I don't remember doing so, especially since my own
on-going use of those terms, based on my rather eclectic education as a Hawai'i-based pagan, always codes
yang as masculine and yin as feminine, not the other way around. If I did mislead you re: their traditional
references, I apologize, and pleased point me to the post. If you're not refering to me, then I just want to
say that I find your use of yin/yang confusing only because I'm used to seeing them used the opposite way.
I'll go back and read the post now with your explanation above in mind."
You know it's
possible I switched yin and yang in my head.(I have been diagnosed as dyslexic - auditory and visual and
have been known to switch things..) I tend to compensate
for it with the sound of the word. yang
sounded like receptive and feminine to me. (You know thinking back on it, I really would have been better
off using masculain and feminine instead of yin and yang ...not precise but not
confusing
either.)
My mistake was delving into Jungian and Eastern Psychoanalytics with no true
understanding of it.
It's not your fault redcat, it's mine. I think I misread all these yin/yang
posts on the boards. Oh well - it's
good I posted because now I'll understand the yin/yang
stuff
better.
Btw: my essays aren't likely to be published outside of my website - which was set up
because I couldn't keep up with all the email requests for them LOL! I really just write them to figure out
stuff in my own head and get great feedback.
So if my wording is imprecise or confusing
please let me know - don't learn otherwise. redcat your feedback has been invaluable - I edited my witch
essay with it in mind.
Thank you again.
And sorry if I misread the yin/yang thing -
you weren't the only one I misread. Yin/yang has always confused me to be honest - which was why I've
veered away from it until now. But so many people wrote about it, I thought okay I get it now, well I did
get it, just switched them in my head. And here I thought I finally understood
it...
[> [> [> [> [> No offense taken here, obviously! Please
don't get discouraged ... -- Exegy, 14:12:42 06/07/02 Fri
I echo others by saying
that you have one of the best intuitive grasps of BtVS I've ever had the privilege to experience. Your use
of yin and yang may have been faulty, but I assumed that was the result of imprecise working definitions
(as was the case). Didn't detract from the thrust of your post at all, though. I still understood the meaning
behind your words. And I agree with a lot of your conclusions (especially those concerning the
significance of Tara's death). Please save this post--it's definitely a keeper!
However, I'd heed
the advice of Caroline and redcat, resident experts on the use of yin and yang. You basically just got the
two terms mixed up. It's an easy fix (as Willow would say).
If you are so inclined, you may
want to do a bit of research on the yin/yang principle. I'm sure one of our posters can direct you to some
good sources on the subject. Then you can write with full confidence.
People here really love
your posts, shadowkat. You are a brilliant and insightful person. Whoever rejected your book must not
appreciate real talent (don't get discouraged, lots of publishers turn down great books--I'm sure someone
will accept your work). Please continue to share your insights!
To leslie--I don't know if you'll
read this, but I like your additional comments to the thread. Your short responses are always a
pleasure.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you to everyone
above!!! -- shadowkat, 14:29:51 06/07/02 Fri
Thank you for the
encouragement...and the information.
Really appreciate it.
I've been enjoying all of your
posts and responses as well.
So really take what you said above as a wonderful
compliment.
I've copied all the responses to my hard drive for further study - so I can edit the
essay later - before it goes to my website. I usually post them first, so I can get responses - and then use the
responses to strengthen the essay, crediting the people who helped of course.
The yin/yang
thing does appear to be an easy fix. And i think you finally convinced me that I was reaching with Spike
as shadow self. I just found it odd how he gets her
to break with Angel first in Season 3 and also
initiates
a break with him in Season 2 - but he doesn't need to be her shadow self to do that. I think
all I did in using the term is confuse myself.
On Drusilla - I think you may be right on that as
well.
Angelus did drive her insane, used her sight partly to do it, but that doesn't make her sight the
cause of it.
Thanks again for all of your comments!
[> [> Re: Mothers and bathrooms -- leslie, 11:29:10 06/07/02 Fri
Two
quick predigestive comments:
1) I agree with you about why Tara's death occurred in the
bedroom, but I think there's more to why the attempted rape occurred in the bathroom. There's been much
comment about the earlier part of the season where Spike's nakedness emphasizes his vulnerability. I
think the bathroom--where Buffy is about to take a shower--is a similarly "vulnerable" location. This is
why this interaction is no longer rough sex but attempted rape, something that takes some time for Spike
to realize *because* he is used to being the vulnerable one, and their rough sex has taken place in *his*
space. And this kind of makes me wonder if part of his realization that things have gone too far
encompasses not only a realization that he has hurt Buffy, but that he is finally able to get some hint of
why she broke up with him--she saw their relationship as verging on the same kind of violation of him
that he has just almost perpetrated on her.
2) William's relationship with his mother--I don't
think we can assume it was necessarily good, merely that it was close. There seems to me some
implication that William is in danger of being smothered by his mother. A propensity for writing bad
poetry is not alone sufficient for the kind of mockery William gets from his peers. There is something
disturbingly childish about his reaction to being accosted by an overtly aggressive woman in an alley--he
may phrase it as "Mother is expecting me," as though she is the one dependent upon him, but it really
smacks of running home to Mommy. And it would be that kind of hypocrisy--pretending he's a grown-up,
man-of-the-house with a mother dependent upon him when in fact she's the one in charge, controlling
him--that would arouse the kind of mockery he gets. Therefore, it seems to me that his relationship with
Drusilla is likely very much a replication of his relationship with his mother, with a lot of Oedipal
overtones. (A LOT of Oedipal overtones, especially when you add Angel into the equation!) We may
initially see Drusilla in a weakened state, but however "paternally" Spike may behave toward her when
she is ill, that's part of the game--allowing him to pretend that he's in charge, when she is still the
complete focus of his unlife. He still thinks that what he has to do to prove his love is to make a woman
the complete focus of his life--this seems to be part of the reason why he first hooks up with Harmony,
who is ecstatic to find someone who would pay so much attention to her, but he soon realizes that he just
can't do it with her, and so comes to despise her for not being enough to completely consume him. Buffy
certainly has the potential for being all-consuming, but she refuses to be consumed.
[> [> [> Thank you leslie, agree! -- shadowkat,
14:40:47 06/07/02 Fri
I really appreciate your responses to my posts - they are
so
insightful. I've even edited some of my essays to include them before placing them on the website -
crediting you of course.
This one was especially good. Was struggling with the
bathroom
corollary. But you hit it on the head. Particulary his vulnerability...which I always felt but couldn't
put
a finger on. It was one of the reasons I had so much trouble with her this season. In AYW, when
Buffy and Riley
attack Spike - he is half naked. They go into his private
place where the eggs
are and destroy it. I know I was supposed to be rooting for B/R but I felt Spike's violation.
Just as I
felt it by the fact that she feels she can burst on him at any time and beat him up for three seasons running
and so do her friends...this year they up the stakes by having him be naked most of the time. I agree it
wasn't for titillation - it was to show us how the relationship wasn't healthy for him.
Also on
the mother relationship - i think you may be right on this - it certainly tracks with redcat and rufus'
theories on his origins. They give us so little though just
a line literally: "Mother is expecting me."
And he delivers
it almost as an excuse to get away from Dru. Then does he transfer his feelings
towards his mother to Dru? If so...than perhaps it is through his odd relationship with dru that we can see
how his real one was? The demon relationships appear to me to be a twisted version of the human ones.
Angelus as a father that tortures his children?
Darla stakes herself so her child can live after
spending most of her pregnancy trying to kill it? I don't know...must let the information fester...for
awhile.
Thanks again for your input!
[> [> [> [> Re: Thank you leslie, agree! -- leslie, 16:50:47 06/07/02 Fri
It's only
one line, but look at where it's placed: first he thinks Dru is a pickpocket and backs away from her, saying
very firmly that she won't get his money, but then as she makes it clear that her interest is sexual (in its
vampish form), *that's* when he *says* he should run home to Mother, but he doesn't move as Dru gets
closer and closer. The first response is self-aware and practical, the second is ambiguous and uncertain. I
really think this part of the story demands more of a Freudian reading than a Jungian one. The interaction
is (potentially) mercenary, he is on familiar ground; the interaction turns (potentially) sexual, the first
thing he thinks of is his mother. Talk about a Freudian slip. I think we can definitely see something of his
maternal relationship in his relationship with Dru--not, perhaps, what it actually was, but where its
undercurrents might have led. We've talked of all the major vamps as being products of their (human)
time--Angel as 18th century Irishman, Spike as Victorian gent, Darla as colonial whore--well, William
was alive just as Freud was formulating his psychological theories through analysis of people very much
of William's class and psyche, albeit in Vienna rather than London.
[> [> [> [> [> A minor observation in all this yummy
psychological goodness -- Vickie, 19:37:23 06/07/02 Fri
You guys are great! Just
one more thing on the whole Oedipal line: Dru is his vampire mother. Remember how she keeps going on
(during the AtS sequence about revamping Darla) about "grandmother"? Drusilla is Spike's mother in the
vampire line.
They have a truly weird relationship.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you leslie, agree! -- Jocasta, 05:39:15 06/08/02 Sat
I
think that this interaction shows how William was 'protected' from predetory women by his mother. She
had schooled him into dividing women into two groups: those who were 'no good' and those who were the
type he should admire and aspire to. The setting of women he admires up on a pedestal is a problem for
Spike... there is no half way for him.... he either worships or treads upon them.... mother's fault? probably
so! In trying to direct him only towards virtuous women she emotionally castrated him.... preventing him
from developing his sexuality and exploring the depths of his passionate nature. Dru undid that and the
euphoric feelings that William exhibits on being vamped were probably linked to that rather than the
bllodlust and the freedom from guilt would be tremendous..... all those repressed thoughts that mother
would not have approved of.... now guilt free.
I'm more of a Jungian than a Freudian adept.
Would Freud make out that he had repressed sexual feelings for his mother? If so I'd say way off the
mark.... the fact that Freud probably did seems to have coloured his view of everyone else.... I think it is
far more the fact that William's mother had forced him to push his deep, passionate nature into his
shadow self (fear of his falling foul of ladies of the night or the pox).... Dru recognized that he had hidden
depths and there is nothing like being vaped to release your shadow self is there?
[> [> [> [> More on armor (Spoilers for AYW ... and DT ...
and SR ... and Grave) -- Exegy, 17:54:43 06/07/02 Fri
First, a quick note on the
AYW scene in which Buffy seeks sexual comfort with Spike:
He's wearing loose clothing,
easy for Buffy to take off. She makes short work of stripping him bare. And he allows her ready access.
Spike opens himself up to her. He becomes naked and vulnerable.
Buffy, OTOH, is still
wearing the Kevlar "armor" Riley gave her. Spike has difficulty reaching her. She's closed off. She hides
her emotions while Spike expresses his feelings (easily declaring his love for her, giving her what she
wants to hear).
The above scene reminds me of the imagery of DT. I speak of the infamous
"door scene." We see Spike on one side of the closed door, his shirt open. The light inside is warm,
comforting. Spike bares his emotions; he lets them shine. Buffy, OTOH, hides her feelings, burying them
under layers of clothes. She stands outdoors, in the dark. She tentatively reaches out, sensing the presence
of her "mate" (hey, it's what the shooting script says), but we see that her hand is gloved. Spike's hand is
bare, and he reaches to open the closed door, in the same movement reaching out to open the closed Buffy.
But we see that she's already gone. Spike can't touch her. Those self-made barriers are too strong (she
can't love him, he's everything she should be against, she's been burned before, and what if he--don't think
that thought).
Then we get to the bathroom scene in SR. The bathroom is a private place,
somewhere Buffy can be alone with herself. She's safe here; she comes here to recuperate after an injury.
She's inside, comforted (as Spike was inside and comforted in DT). She can be vulnerable, weak (as Spike
was in his crypt in AYW).
Then Spike enters. He's still trying to reach her, even though he
knows it's a lost cause. But Buffy gives him reason to hope (just as she gave him reason to hope in AYW
when she slept beside him, seeking comfort). She opens herself up enough to admit feelings for him. This
is what Spike wants to hear (just as Buffy wanted to hear that she was beautiful and wanted). His efforts to
reach her escalate, and he ends up trying to make her feel the only way he knows how (through the act of
sexual intercourse, the only way she ever allowed herself to be completely vulnerable/open/raw to him).
Spike becomes violent in his attempt to reach her; he rips at her bathrobe (her scant "armor"). Buffy's
being violated; she's not opening herself to him, he's doing this against her will. She screams and pleads
for him to stop, but he doesn't hear her. He's lost, out of control; this time he's the one who's closed her,
he's the one who wears the black clothing (not really armor in this case--that would be the duster,
indicative of the BB exterior--but the self brought down to its negative image).
Buffy finally
kicks some sense into Spike. And he leaves, realizing that he's been brought to nothing. Not a BB (leaving
the duster behind). Not a man, not someone Buffy could ever trust with her feelings. He goes, the negative
image of himself, and he seeks change. A reinvention. We see him stripped entirely during his trials;
Spike must be open to transformation (and all the pain that transformation entails).
Let's go
back to where we left Buffy: on her bathroom floor. We see that something Spike has done has finally
reached her. He's forced her to recognize his feelings (in their ugliest manifestation), to accept for once
their absolute reality. The bruise he's left upon her bare thigh is concrete proof of the legitimacy of his
emotions. Buffy can no longer discount Spike as a dead man who doesn't matter, who doesn't mind being
used. She realizes that her part in the mutually abusive S/B relationship has led them to this outcome.
If only she could have let him open that door of her own accord.
But she was
afraid to let her emotions out, afraid to risk the chances of being burned again (as Angel burned her). So
she closed herself off.
But the outcome is the same: the lover leaves. Buffy's unvoiced fear
(probably closed to her own conscious mind) has resurfaced. Spike's left her, just as all her other lovers
(and father figures) have left her. And she shares partial blame for the ugly mess of the S/B relationship.
She knows what a monster she's been (which is why I feel that she doesn't blame Spike entirely for his
actions in SR).
Buffy's been terribly closed off all this season. The trauma of recent times has
hurt her, causing her to bury her emotions. (In Intervention, she wonders if she has lost the ability to love.
She hasn't let herself say the words for so long--they feel strange to her tongue. But the Spirit Guide tells
her that she is full of love, if she'll only open herself to it. She needs to risk the pain, to give ... and
forgive. Hmmm. Interesting advice that applies to more than Season 5.)
For we see that Buffy
has hidden herself from the pain all season (after her last grand effort of The Gift). She's buried her
emotions ("I touch the fire / and it freezes me"). But in Grave she seems to break through. She finally digs
herself out of the earth, bringing herself up intact (Dawn reflects Buffy's emotions). She's no longer
buried; she's out in the world. Her emotions don't need to be protected anymore; she can finally show them
to the world again, risking the pain for the joy (part and parcel of the human experiance, accept one and
you accept the other).
So Buffy has risked the pain. She's given of herself. Now can she
forgive, risking once again? We'll see what happens when Spike returns next year.
Buffy will
have to forgive both Spike and herself for the respective roles played in the shared disaster of
S/B.
Whew! Thanks for reading, I had fun writing!
Comments are appreciated. I
will post again if this is archived.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: More on armor (Spoilers for AYW ...
and DT ... and SR ... and Grave) -- shadowkat, 18:33:38 06/07/02 Fri
Great
post!
I agree. As I was reading it something else came to mind that's been bugging me. Her
comment to Dawn when she's trying to get out the hole in Grave. Dawn tells Buffy that the area reminds
her of the tunnels beneath Spike's crypt and maybe if they broke through they could reach it.
Buffy
says, very sarcastically and bitterly - like that'll help or something to that effect. It wasn't what she said so
much as her tone, which Dawn interprets as a reaction to the AR scene. She asks -"oh and it was okay to
bring me there after he attacked you?" Buffy lets Dawn know it happened because she grumbles about
Xander and Dawn yells at her for not telling her and trying to protect her all the time...But they never
address why Buffy was okay about
seeing him after AR scene and bringing Dawn there,
but
upset about doing it now, while they are digging out of
a grave?
Also according
to the shooting script - she was holding back tears when Clem said Spike had left. She is struggling with
them and on the verge when he says he doesn't know when he's coming back. She even asks when in Two
to Go.
So I'm wondering and have been for some time, if Buffy
is more angry at him for
leaving than for AR scene? I think she understood the AR, maybe even expected that. But
him
leaving? No. Then maybe she thinks - typical. I reject them,
I drive them away, they all
leave.
Remember Spike himself says in Checkpoint - "can't keep a man" "Maybe you drive
them away..." and he riles her on it.
And manages to really get to her. That's her nightmare
as
expressed way back in The Nightmares episode. And echoed by Angelus in Innocence. Riley in Into the
Woods and again in AYW and of course Giles in Tabula Rasa.
In Smashed - he says "Wasn't
planning on hurtin you much"
She says -"you haven't come close to hurting me"
Him -"afraid
to give me the chance? afraid i'm gonna-"
she cuts him off. I think she's afraid to open to him -
he'll leave or worse...force her to kill him. She already has problems killing him. It's been her fear
for quite awhile. Dawn expresses it in Crush -"Buffy's always talking
about how worried she is if you
ever got the chip out.."
and in Smashed - she has a look of terror on her face when he hits her the
first time, when he says it's because somethings wrong with her, she almost looks relieved. Then in DT's
her nightmare has her staking him - in a completely vulnerable state.
Interesting. In the
dream, she is on top of his naked vulnerable, SLEEPING, body on the floor of HIS crypt, after
they
made love, and she drives the stake through his chest.
After this dream - she goes to turn herself in
to the cops, he tries to stop her, and she beats him to a pulp, sees his human face, looks at it horrified at
what she's done and goes to confess.
How many times did she save his life before that? Well
she stops the loanshark in TR from killing him both as Randy and as Spike. this is before they really get
involved.
Later in AYW, she stops Riley from killing him.
Then she races to the MAgic
Box and stops Xander from doing it in Entropy. Stops him again in SR. That's the shred of hope she gives
him. He asks why. She says you know why.
He doesn't. She can't tell him.
So is this
love? Not exactly. What does Tara say? "It's not that simple". Her relationship with Spike is probably the
most complicated emotional relationship she's ever had and I have to say the most realistic romantically
for that reason. Romantic/sex relationships are usually very complicated. Sex itself complicates things.
A very wise man told me once that if you think you're worried about what someone thinks
before you get naked with them and expose yourself - just wait. Sex always complicates
a
relationship. Whether love is involved or not. Sex with
a demon...well...that's even more
complicated. But we don't know this in our 20s or when we're just starting out.
I agree the S/B
and AR was as much B's fault and S's.
There really is no bad guy here - unless you want to count
them both. She needs to forgive herself and him. He needs to forgive himself and her. (Whether he's
already forgiven her is debatable.) Until they do...not sure if they can
even be friends. And how they
handle it will have a lot to do with how he comes back and how much he remembers.
If this
gets' archived please repost again...I really think it's great. Saved to hard drive. May quote it when
I
do my OZ/Buffy Spike/Willow comparison...assuming I don't
get this job I interviewed for
today. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you. And great reply on your
part ... (Spoilers follow) -- Exegy, 20:12:39 06/07/02 Fri
You bring up some
wonderful points. For example:
Dawn tells Buffy that the area (the hole in Grave)
reminds her of the tunnels beneath Spike's crypt and maybe if they broke through they could reach
it.
Just look at the wording there. Breaking through. Reaching that inner sanctum (as
Spike attempted to reach Buffy in her inner sanctum). The words are Dawn's, but much of what Dawn
says must reflect what Buffy feels (Dawn is the "best part" of Buffy, the part that has to be protected and
saved, the part that has been neglected all this season). Buffy has not attended to Dawn; she has not
attended to her own emotions. She has kept them hidden, buried, overprotected and neglected all at once.
It's no wonder that she plays such a large part in the dysfunction of S/B. She's not even in tune with
herself (as the strained relationship with Dawn indicates).
But Buffy's starting to get along
better with Dawn. She's starting to awaken to her own emotions. We see her bringing Dawn to Spike's (in
Villians), and it's almost as if she's offering him that emotional part of her. Dawn reflects Buffy's feelings,
and Dawn wants to seek comfort with Spike. She has the "Summers' blind spot," the unwillingness to
believe the worst of Spike. She can't believe Xander when he tells her about the potential rape. How could
Spike betray Buffy's love like that? He couldn't do that! (I'm sure that Buffy never thought her lover would
ever be able to do that to her. We see that she trusts him enough to turn her back on him in the
bathroom. She believes in his love for her, and when he betrays that love ... she feels incredibly hurt ...
and she realizes her own fault in the relationship. But she still trusts him enough to bring Dawn to him--
she knows that he did not intend to hurt her and he wouldn't hurt Dawn, the best part of
her).
The breach of trust has occurred. Buffy's bringing Dawn to Spike reveals an acceptance
of that and perhaps a metaphorical attempt at reconciliation (with Dawn as an extension of Buffy's
feelings). But Spike's gone. And here we have Buffy's secret fear come true, the fear at the root of her self-
made barriers. It's the fear that holds that door between Buffy and Spike closed, the possibility that she
doesn't want to acknowledge (shutting him up with her lips in Smashed when he comes near to the truth).
It's the fear of him leaving her. Yet another man in her life leaving her ... due in part to what she has
done.
And it hurts her. She's tried to close herself off. She's tried to bury her feelings. But
she's been hurt all the same. And now I get to your second point:
(After Dawn mentions the
attempt to break through to Spike's crypt) Buffy says, very sarcastically and bitterly--like that'll help or
something to that effect. Spike's gone. Clem doesn't expect that he'll be back. There's nothing left to
do about the situation.
Buffy has no real problem bringing Dawn, her emotional self, to
Spike's in Villains. It's almost as if she wants some reparation to take place. But when Spike's gone, Buffy
reveals her bitterness. And Dawn confronts her on the matter. Buffy says that she needs to be protected,
she shouldn't know this (the emotional self shouldn't have to deal with these problems). But Dawn replies
that she has to know this--it affects her whether Buffy likes it or not (Buffy will be hurt whether she likes
it or not, as the bruise on her thigh and the look of utter loss in SR would indicate). Dawn (the
emotions) cannot be protected forever. Buffy realizes that she needs to show Dawn (and herself) to the
world, risking the pain for the joy.
Buffy emerges from the grave intact. She brings Dawn and
her emotions to the surface. We see her acknowledging those feelings she left behind (and crying at the
relief such feelings bring).
Previously we saw a Buffy not in tune with herself. She felt wrong,
less than human. She could believe Spike when he called her a demon. She wanted to believe him, for the
real Buffy would never descend to such lows. The real Buffy would never abuse her lover and
neglect her sister and let Willow drown in an addiction.
We see some of Buffy's guilt manifest
itself in the DT dream (nice catch, 'kat!). The issue of trust comes up when Buffy asks Spike the same
question he asked her at the beginning of the episode: "Do you trust me?"
Buffy trusted Spike.
She wouldn't admit it, but she trusted him. Enough for him to handcuff her and have his way with her.
She opened up to him completely in the act of sex; her strongest emotions burst through, leaving Spike
with a raw, violent animal at his mercy (something I'm sure he found quite pleasureable, if somewhat
painful). Buffy could let Spike see her at her worst; he accepted her no matter how negative she became.
He gave her what she feared (knew) her friends couldn't give her at the time. And she could feel
when she made love to him. But some of what she was feeling she didn't like. All those negative,
repressed emotions flooding out....
Buffy felt like she couldn't trust herself with Spike.
She knew she was using his love for her; she knew she was hurting and destroying him even as he
accepted her abuse. We see Buffy's guilt in the dream when she stakes the naked and vulnerable Spike
(who has put himself entirely at her mercy). Spike becomes Katrina, a woman Buffy believes she
has killed. Buffy sees what she is capable of, and she runs away from her actions. She tells Dawn that she
is going to turn herself in, but is she going for the "right" reasons? Or is she once again fleeing from
herself, fleeing from her emotions (indicated by the estrangement from Dawn).
Then we have
the nice bit of projection in which Buffy transfers her own self-loathing upon Spike. She "beats him to a
pulp." When she sees what she's done to her lover, she moans and turns herself into the police. They can
handle it, they can take of her. She's giving up her responsibility for her actions to them.
I
doubt she ever goes back to Spike in that alley; she wants to run away from what she's done. She can't
look back at her bloody handiwork, the fulfillment of her guilty dream. She's wrong, all this is
wrong.
But she's weak; even after her confession to Tara she continues to abuse Spike (AYW
depicts some of the most reprehensible action I have ever seen; Buffy knows exactly how wrong she is and
yet she continues on, killing herself along the way). I think Buffy just doesn't quite get the very real
damage she's causing to Spike. She just doesn't take this "dead man" as seriously as she should. Although
"he's not exactly complaining" about her tender ministrations, the damage is evident (the mutilation that
Spike hardly acknowledges is a literal representation of his psychological condition). Buffy's forced to see
the damage she's caused in SR when her lover snaps as a result of all the abuse he's uncomplainably put
up with.
Buffy and Spike are both the bad guys here. They each share the blame for their
dysfunctional relationship. And I totally agree that Buffy has to forgive Spike and Spike has to forgive
Buffy before a healthier relationship (one built on mutual trust) can arise.
What Buffy did
to Spike should not be swept under the rug, as so much of their unhealthy affair was. It should be
acknowledged and dealt with by both partners. Then the healing can begin.
This will be an
interesting process. I am so looking forward to the next season! I don't care what anyone else says--this
season has been brilliant. THE IMAGERY ALONE! Enough said.
Thanks for the fascinating
discussion, 'kat. I will be sure to check out your website. I hope you get your job anyway (as long as you
really want it). Have fun.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you. And great
reply on your part ... (Spoilers follow) -- leslie,
09:28:38 06/08/02 Sat
"What Buffy did to Spike should not be swept under the rug, as
so much of their unhealthy affair was. It should be acknowledged and dealt with by both partners. Then
the healing can begin."
This is a really important point, I think. The relationship can't end, or
can't become "just friends," if Buffy is ever going to get through her fears and emotional blockage with
men. She *is* in a pretty self-defeating loop--the men she loves always leave, starting with her father--but
the thing about Spike is that, while she thinks he's left like all the others, it seems pretty clear that he *is*
coming back. But if he comes back, then she has to deal with that--she can't just chalk it up to another
failed relationship, oh I'm doomed, nothing ever works out--that is a painful way to live, but at the same
time, it's safe. You never have to confront what you fear. And while Spike may be obsessive and "love's
bitch," he's a lot more clear-headed and self-reflective (emotionally intelligent) about love, what it is, what
it does, how it works, than she is. For me, one of the saddest things about the crash-and-burn of their
relationship was that, at least at the beginning, it seemed that he was the one who had the emotional
strength to make her face her fears--much like Giles supported her when Angel went bad, saying that
things were going to get bad, but she had no way of knowing that this would happen, she had made a
decision based on Angel's real love for her, and that he (Giles) still respected her. Buffy was unwilling to
accept that kind of support from Spike because he was soulless, but she still needed it from someone and
he was the only one who had the strength to give it to her. I just really hope that when he returns, they do
work their way back to an emotional *and* sexual relationship (not immediately, there's too much
baggage that has to be unpacked first), just to break this damned self-defeating loop that Buffy is locked
in--*that* is what is going to give Buffy a normal life. Because frankly, that's another thing you have to
do in your twenties--you either identify your loops and figure out how to break them, or you risk getting
stuck in them for the rest of your life. Like a vampire. (And a note to ME--bad boys have to do this too, for
crying out loud, if they live past the age of 30. Otherwise they just turn into the mockery of the current
generation of bad boys, pathetic losers trying in vain to retain their youth. Or movie producers.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree. Platonic
relationship first (Spoilers) -- Exegy, 12:01:13 06/08/02 Sat
The two have to deal
with those issues of trust (and who wronged who in the affair, etc.) before anything positive can emerge.
They shouldn't just jump into a romance--we already had that particular scenario this season, and it didn't
work out. It was like watching two people clinging to each other in the sinking 'ship of codependency,
grasping always at the other as the house falls down (the imagery of mutual self-destruction). An ugly but
enthralling sight (like a train wreck).
There should be some major sparkage between the
characters next season (no romance needed). We're still dealing with a loaded situation; explosions of
some sort are imminent. Should be interesting.
OMG, look at all those mixed metaphors. I'm
obviously sleep-deprived. Please ignore above blathering. I'm just saving the thread so that it doesn't get
archived too soon--if it does, then I'll begin another thread tonight (if I get back in time) so we can
continue this discussion.
PS. Love your comments on Buffy's "self-defeating loop." Spike has
his own self-defeating (relationship) loop: his acquiescence to the role of "love's bitch" and all the abuse
said role allows. He must stand up for himself and his rights as an equal partner if he is to make any
forward progress. I also agree with you about the arrested development of the soulless vampire (he's stuck
with the worldview of a love's bitch and a perpetual Big Bad wannabe). Buffy can't love him as he is, so
he must change for her (and himself, because he's become nothing as he is). He gets a soul, he wants to
reinvent himself. What will he choose to become? Can't wait 'til nest season to find out!
I must
go now, but it's been as a pleasure as always.
Exegy
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree.
Platonic relationship first (Spoilers) -- shadowkat, 19:14:24 06/08/02 Sat
Actually what you wrote made perfect sense, mixed metaphors included. The smashed house -
metaphorically showed the wreck that their sexual relationship would become - reminds me of a post I
read some time ago on Poe's House of Usher, as well as metaphorically showed what happens when two
opposing forces join. (BTW: if you haven't seen Attack of Clones - see it. There are some really interesting
echoes
of Btvs in it and it's actually a lot better than the critics think. One scene including the
dialogue reminded me of spike and buffy. While another made me think of Giles
and Willow and
Tara and Willow. Attack of the Clones - part II of the Star Wars Prologue: deals with our desires to
control our world - imprint our will on it. Keep people alive. Avenge their deaths. Be powerful. Also take
what we want, screw duty and responsibility. And the consequences of doing that...it is the story about the
fall of the hero, which I actually find far more interesting.)
Speaking of fall of the hero and
mistakes...this may sound strange - but I think B/S had to fail to succeed. Just as Buffy had to fall into a
grave with Dawn to be able to finally emerge. On the train home one day - I was discussing fear of failure
with a friend and she said something that made me think: "It's okay to fail. Failure can be good. It's not
always a bad." If we always succeed we don't learn how to deal with the pain, the loss. Failure makes us
strong. Without failure, we can become arrogant. We begin to think we are invincable. Failure can humble
us. We sometimes learn the best things from failure.
Buffy has learned from her failed
relationships. From Angel and Riley - she learned that love without trust cannot last.
That was what
destroyed both relationships. She and Angel were no longer able to trust one another after Angel became
Angelus and she sent him to hell. They forgave each other, but in the back of their minds - they couldn't
trust themselves not to repeat it, not to fail a second time. (There were other factors of course - that's what
I love about the show - it has so many things that we can discuss and analyze in it.) Riley and buffy had
the same problem: Riley couldn't trust Buffy after Dracula, the combination of Dracula and Angel was too
much for him. And Buffy couldn't trust Riley after she found out about him and the Initiative - realized he
couldn't deal with the gray, so she couldn't tell him about Dawn out of fear he'd tell the government which
she couldn't trust. TRUST. And I think it's obvious why she can't trust Spike - I agree I think she did,
more than she wanted to, but as Marti N. puts it - Buffy could only trust him as far as she was concerned
(ie. not to hurt her or her loved ones and friends) but she could not trust him in the wide spectrum of
things (ie. the demon eggs, or the girl he almost bit in smashed, or his consultation with the trio about the
chip, or even the kitty poker...). Spike's the sort who would do twisty, evil things without her knowledge,
thinking it it doesn't hurt her and she doesn't know, it's not bad. In his mind - it's only bad or evil if it
directly hurts her or the ones she cares for. This is part of the reason he doesn't get her guilt over Katrina.
An accident. Katrina wasn't a friend. She didn't know her. Why destroy herself over a non-entity. (Could
have been written better - but I think that was the point.) She knows that in the back of her mind, it nags
at her. And is brought to light in AYW. That said - I agree AYW
was reprehensible for its abuse -
she does to Spike in AYW
what Warren does to KAtrina in DT, except Spike loves Buffy
and
Buffy doesn't or can't let herself love Spike. By doing what she does - she gives him hope. Not a good
idea. It's easier, I think for him to handle her rejection of him without the hope...when you have hope, you
start to allow yourself to dream, to plan, to care. Whatever safe-guards he'd built up concerning her - he
starts to let crumble.
He really has no defenses when Riley bursts in on them, he is completely
vulnerable. I find the scenes in AYW as painful and difficult to watch as the AR scene. The acting is that
good. So it's not just Buffy who shouldn't trust Spike, but Spike who shouldn't trust Buffy. Great
point!
Leslie pointed out that Spike as William had a tendency to
put women on pedestals
- a very Victorian idea. I don't think Dru completely cured him of this tendency. But he isn't alone. In this
way he is quite similar to Xander.
And to some degree Riley and Angel - who all have a tendency to
put Buffy on a pedestal. I don't think Spike did in Season 4 or most of 5 necessarily...but after Tough Love
I felt he began to, hence the whole - you can never love me routine, you're too good for me (The gift).
Well she fell off it this year. He's confused in Smashed by her behavior, as he puts it, she's being a tease.
Kisses him. Hits him. He'd gotten used to her hitting him. Then that ended. She started kissing him. It
confused him. He tries to discuss it. She starts hitting him again - something she hadn't done since before
she died. He's understandably confused, particularly when he can suddenly hit her back - an old dream
come true. So when he checks out his chip and discovers the reason he can hit her has nothing to do with
him, he thinks oh - she's kissing me and hitting me because she's no longer good, she's more like me, she's
at my level now, so we can be together. Mine. Remember what he tells her in Smashed after she accuses
him of getting off on her beating him up? "Hello Vampire, I'm supposed to be treading on the dark side!
What's your excuse?" (Why are you doing this? Demons do this.) The goddess fell off the pedestal and
came to earth, actually went below the earth...like Persephone joined Hades in the Underworld. Buffy likes
this idea, being wrong - and gives into it, it gives her an excuse to detach from her friends, to ignore
Willow and her responsibilities. When Tara tells her that she's not wrong, that it's just a fluke, she falls
apart and tries to climb back onto that pedestal above Spike. Unfortunately her means of doing it - isn't all
that graceful and Spike no longer trusts her. She broke his trust in Normal Again...when she accused him
of doing something he didn't do and allowed her friends to attack him. He was merely being friendly. He's
losing his tolerance for the abuse. She wants to go back to the "Spike the kickable villain of Season 4" or
of "Crush", but sorry, Spike's right things have changed, you can't go back. Things continue to fall apart
from there. Buffy's biggest mistake is the same one she keeps making over and over again - burying her
feelings, avoiding the problem, telling it to just go away until it literally and figuratively explodes in her
face. As Xander stated in
Dead Man's Party three seasons before : "You can't just bury things, Buffy
- they have a way of coming up and getting you." Willow discovers the same thing this year - all those
buried painful emotions erupt. Xander also discovers this - all that fear he's buried erupts. I bet they wish
it was just zombies - you could just kill them.
Back to the pedestal idea (see if I don't write these
things separate I go off on tangents...) - it's telling that Spike says to the lurker demon - "she thinks she's
better than me". He doesn't want her up on that pedestal.
He's finally realized she doesn't belong
there. Wait! Has Spike finally broken out of a pattern? Is he beginning to realize that he can be as good as
Buffy? That she is not on the pedestal?? If so...then I think there may be a chance for him. We'll have to
see if he reverts back to the pedestal thing when he gets ensouled. I hope not, sort of kill the whole "grow
up" idea.
And to be honest - I don't think Buffy likes being on the pedestal either. Angel
treated her like a fragile doll half the time. Riley treats her like this hero. So does Xander.
She just
wants to be a woman. Being superior and voice of reason - gets tiring.
Perhaps...next season
she can be the hero without having to be the "super" hero? On a pedestal? And perhaps Spike
can
assist without being considered a villain? Or below everyone? Perhaps they had to smash their
house to build
a new one on its foundation?
Final comments in this long rambling reply
post - I agree that there will be much sparkage next season, but not necessarily romantic. They have major
issues. I'm hoping to see more of the friendship develop...between all the characters and a little less
romance. But - Btvs has always had strong sexual undertones and metaphors at work, so I'm sure someone
will be getting it on. If so - please let it be actors with onscreen chemistry!! ;-)
Thanks leslie
and Exegy for a great discussion! Saving
most of it to harddrive... ;- ) shadowkat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree.
Platonic relationship first (Spoilers) -- leslie,
21:28:57 06/08/02 Sat
"And to be honest - I don't think Buffy likes being on the
pedestal either. Angel treated her like a fragile doll half the time. Riley treats her like this hero. So does
Xander.
She just wants to be a woman. Being superior and voice of reason - gets
tiring."
Oh dear god yes. Especially the way Angel treated her like a fragile doll--one of the
reasons I never really understood the whole Angel thing. ("WHAT the hell does she see in him?" I kept
wondering. Maybe being broody myself makes me less impressed by the quality in others.)
The
point about Riley, though, also makes an interesting contrast with Spike. Riley not only wants her to be a
hero, he has to be a hero too--they have to be SuperPartners, Dedicated to Saving the World for Good and
Operant Conditioning. When *he* falls off the pedestal, by learning that his Super Powers are artificially
induced, he becomes jealous of Buffy, whose powers are innate. There are a lot of factors contributing to
their breakup, but I think plain old jealousy is one that has been relatively overlooked--he's jealous of her
strength and powers, he's jealous of her concern for her sick mother, he's jealous of Angel, he's jealous of
Dracula, and finally, the best he can do to make himself feel better is--not the vamp trull--it's getting
Spike to admit that *he* is jealous of Riley. Now that's sinking low--when the only thing that makes you
feel powerful is that Spike envies you. (But once again--Mr. Emotional Intelligence has relatively little
problem in admitting that he's jealous of Riley when he's directly questioned about it, whereas Riley can't
admit his jealousy to Buffy--he has to frame it as some kind of quest for
enlightenment.)
(Somehow it seems particularly appropriate that I am listening to Patti Smith
singing "Because the Night" as I am writing this.)
Anyway, Spike, like Riley, wants Buffy and
him to be on the same level, as it were, but in contrast to Riley, he wants them both to be off the pedestal
rather than on it. It's just that he has a hard time conceptualizing this. I think you've hit it on the head
how he first thinks she's on the pedestal, then off it, so then she must be "wrong" like him, but wait she
isn't wrong, and he doesn't feel wrong, but everyone is telling him he's wrong, so where is he? Up is down
and down is up and black is white and white is black.
Spike's always been a trickster who
causes chaos for others--either deliberately, as in the Yoko Factor, or just by existing as a challenge to the
status quo, from frying the Annointed One instead of the Slayer to running around town in the daylight
with a smoking blanket over his head. He's usually standing back and watching all the chaos with a big
grin on his face, but this time--from the time the house falls down--he's caught in the chaos himself. But
what tricksters do is generate a new order from their chaos. And now Patti is singing "We Shall Live
Again."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Excellent posts, 'kat and leslie. You've inspired me to begin my own thread. -- Exegy, 10:37:48
06/10/02 Mon
... if Voy doesn't act up on me again!!!!!!
Screw studying for
statistics, I'm writing this thing while I have the chance!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Excellent posts, 'kat and leslie. You've inspired me to begin my own thread. -- shadowkat,
18:54:24 06/10/02 Mon
Good idea. While you're doing it - ask yourself about the
significance of keeping that chip and what it means.
Been bugging me lately.
Buffy looks different -- Kyle, 21:47:12 06/06/02 Thu
Ummm, my girlfriend and I were just wondering if anyone else has noticed that Sarah
Michelle looks different this season. We think it's that she lost a lot of weight but we're not sure. Anyone
else noticed this?
[> Re: Buffy looks different -- Deeva, 09:36:05 06/07/02
Fri
This season compared to which other ones? She probably has lost some weight but she
is tiny, 5' 3" I've heard, so any weight loss would be noticeable. Just watched part of the MTV Movie
Awards last night and she looked great.
[> [> I think Sarah lost weight to play Buffy this season. --
VampRiley, 11:13:54 06/07/02 Fri
She did look good on the MTV Awards show last
night, but I do think she should gain a few pounds.
VR
[> [> [> Re: I think Sarah lost weight to play Buffy this
season. -- Brian, 13:05:40 06/07/02 Fri
And her makeup and hair were done to
make her look more gaunt for season 6. After all, she spend most of the season wanting to
elsewhere.
[> SMG the Anti-Shatner -- Darby, 12:01:59 06/07/02
Fri
Sarah has lost weight fairly consistently throughout the show - I remember reading in
an interview that she claimed she had lost "baby fat" and at least one cup size. I've always figured it was
the Hollywood image - you can tell though the early seasons that she was probably self-conscious about
her stomach (it's very rarely showing), and it became part of Buffy's "look" even though SMG's style has
since changed.
Before people get angry with me, I am not saying that she was ever heavy, even
by Hollywood standards, but she is short and that may not look ideal on-screen. I think she got close to
the Hollywood ideal around the beginning of season 5, but she kept getting thinner. It doesn't look
completely healthy.
Oh, almost forgot the title - on Star Trek, the original series, you
can tell how far into a season an episode is by how paunchy William Shatner is. He slimmed down over
hiatus but couldn't keep up the regimen once they started shooting.
[> [> Starfleet Standard Issue: Phaser, Communicator,
Girdle -- cjl, 13:04:57 06/07/02 Fri
[> [> [> LOL -- Rob, 13:12:37 06/07/02 Fri
[> [> [> .... and toupe! -- Vickie, 15:48:16 06/07/02
Fri
[> [> As evidence that not everyone shares some of the views
expressed in this thread, -- Sophist, 16:01:21 06/07/02 Fri
I offer the fact that the
current newstand issue of Celebrity Sleuth magazine selected SMG as No. 4 on its list of sexiest
celebrities for 2002.
For those unfamiliar with this magazine, it is one devoted to leering at
the bodies of female celebrities. The top 25 were listed in reverse order, a fact which forced me -- much
against my will -- to flip through almost the entire magazine to find SMG at No. 4.
[> Re: Buffy looks different -- Ruth, 16:17:55 06/07/02
Fri
I think it's possible she is naturally at a low weight as Freddie Prince Junior has said
she is always eating Big Macs and ususally polishes away more than him when they eat out. If you notice
she loses weight throughout the season through overwork. E.g in BuffyvsDracula she was at a healthy
weight on the beach. But towards the end of the season she looked gaunt. Check out Intervention when
she is posing as the bot visiting Spike. Her weight loss is notcieable. Again this season she is working
really long days, not to mention the musical reguired a lot of dancing lessons etc. Anyone would lose
weight on such a tough shedule. Plus Sarah doesn't eat when she gets stressed apparantly. She says when
filming IKWYDLS she got so run-down she stopped eating and Freddie cooked her up a feast because he
was so concerned. She lost so much weight on that movie she wore false breasts so she could still have
some curves along with a slim figure. No one except for barbie can have a stick figure and enormous
breasts sadly. They weren't natural during that movie although I'm nopt sure if she is still increasing her
cup size?
[> [> you mean... -- anom, 23:22:29 06/08/02 Sat
"I think it's possible she is naturally at a low weight as Freddie Prince Junior has said she is
always eating Big Macs and ususally polishes away more than him when they eat out."
...Fred
is based on SMG?
[> Re: Buffy looks different -- Magus777, 18:36:40 06/07/02
Fri
I hope SMG isn't going through a tough time for any reason. Thats usually the cause
for weight loss other than exersising.
[> Re: Buffy looks different -- oneeyedchicklet, 10:58:40 06/08/02
Sat
I was worried about Buffy's apparent weight loss, and tired, gaunt appearance,
especially when Giles first returned ("....I'm a miracle") but then remembered that she was filming Scooby
Doo at the same time season 6 was shot. I read that she worked 2 weeks in Australia, then 2 weeks on
BtVS, and continued till the movie was completed. I think she was exhausted and evidently she loses
weight during times of stress (unlike some of us...)
chicklet
[> Re: Buffy looks different -- CaptainPugwash, 03:14:01
06/10/02 Mon
Buffy will never look like she did in Season #1 again - much of her weight
loss (and AH's weight gain) is just part of growing up. Her appearance during most of Season #6 looked
quite normal/healthy to me.
However, she has lost weight recently and it shows (it was the first
thing I noticed in Grave). It's strange really; it's quite possible to be thin & healthy and look
healthy, but it doesn't take much weight loss before someone starts looking 'tired'.
[> [> Buffy in Season 1 -- Marie, 05:53:10 06/10/02
Mon
According to the make-up artist (on the 'make-up' commentary for the S1 DVD),
they were directed to make Buffy look "country", i.e. healthily chubby-cheeked, etc., but it was decided
that this wasn't working, so for S2 they cut and bleached her hair, and thinned out her cheekbones, to
make her more the Buffy we know and love today.
As for weight changes, etc., some of the
scenes are actually re-shot months later, so what you see at the beginning of a season may well have been
shot towards the end of a season. In which case, any signs of weight loss would show early on as well.
Does that make sense?
Marie
p.s. To all you country-folk - 'twasn't me that said it,
so don't shoot if you've taken offence!
[> [> [> probably a rhetorical q., but... -- anom,
09:58:08 06/10/02 Mon
...why would they want her to look "country" when she was
from LA?
[> [> Re: Buffy looks different -- cjc36, 06:59:58
06/10/02 Mon
I think AH has gained weight, but also muscle mass, if net photos are to be
believed. Probably due to a workout regimen. Very healthy!
Current board
| More June 2002